Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 4 of 10
The Tribunal held that for derivative transactions, only the net profit or loss, not the gross value, should be considered for calculating turnover under Section 44AB. Therefore, the assessee's turnover did not exceed the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity and that short notices were issued. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC as its plant was not situated in a notified area. The pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court did not alter the current non-eligibility.
The Tribunal held that issuing a show-cause notice is mandatory before disturbing the returned income in faceless assessments. Since this procedure was not followed, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of unsecured loans and salary payable, finding sufficient evidence provided by the assessee. The issue of sundry creditors was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. The disallowance on account of various expenses was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 50 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification. The AO is to re-compute the disallowance based on the due date of deposit from the close of the month of actual salary disbursement.
The Tribunal held that the issue of AMP adjustment was covered in favour of the assessee by previous orders of the ITAT and the Delhi High Court, which had ruled that no adjustment could be made for AMP expenses in the absence of a defined international transaction. The disallowance under Section 14A was also decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that license fees for live transmission of sports events do not constitute 'Royalty' under the Act or the DTAA, especially when the DTAA has not been amended to include such income. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to provide clear reasons for treating tournament fees and reimbursements as royalty.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when the tax payable under normal provisions is less than the tax payable under Section 115JB, especially for assessment years prior to 2016-17. The assessee's bona fides were also considered due to burgeoning losses and voluntary disclosure of a clerical mistake.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for factual verification. The AO is to re-compute the disallowance based on the due date of deposit from the month of actual salary disbursement, as per the ruling in Kanoi Paper and Industries Ltd.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the royalty claim in Assessment Year 2012-13, as the liability crystallized in that year. Other grounds concerning facility management fees and exploration costs were decided based on previous tribunal rulings.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the royalty claim in Assessment Year 2012-13, as the liability crystallized in that year. Other grounds concerning facility management fees and exploration costs were decided based on previous tribunal rulings.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for factual verification. The AO is to re-compute the disallowance based on the due date of deposit from the month of actual salary disbursement, as per the ruling in Kanoi Paper and Industries Ltd.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the royalty claim in Assessment Year 2012-13, as the liability crystallized in that year. Other grounds concerning facility management fees and exploration costs were decided based on previous tribunal rulings.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide credible evidence to establish a fixed place PE in India for the sale of software licenses. Therefore, no income from software license sales could be attributed to a PE.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide credible evidence to establish a fixed place PE in India for the sale of software licenses. Therefore, no income from software license sales could be attributed to a PE.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO had not found any defects in the stock data or books of accounts. Suspicion alone, without tangible evidence, cannot replace proof, and since the AO accepted the books and entries, the addition was unwarranted.
The Tribunal found that the AO made the addition based on a lack of documentary evidence, despite the assessee providing ledger accounts, addresses, and stating payments were made through banking channels. The Tribunal noted that bank statements were available and set aside the impugned order, restoring the issue to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that salary income earned for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, it is exempt under Article 15(1) of the India-Netherlands DTAA as the assessee was a resident of Netherlands and exercised employment outside India.
The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal of the appeal. Following the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4,20,000 was decided in favour of the assessee in a preceding year, and the addition of Rs. 78,260 on account of short TDS was resolved. Therefore, no case for penalty was made out.
The Tribunal held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in directing the AO to conduct further verification without providing specific guidance. The DRP should have made conclusive findings based on the material available.
The Tribunal observed that there was no effective representation for the assessee before the lower authorities and that the principles of natural justice demand a fair opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue of foreign exchange fluctuations to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's grounds were rejected based on this restoration.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is unsustainable if no exempt income has been earned in the assessment year, regardless of potential future exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue of foreign exchange fluctuations to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's grounds were rejected based on this restoration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of the loan, including bank statements and ledger accounts. The date discrepancy was considered a typographical error that should have been clarified with the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Act differentiates between employee and employer contributions. For employee contributions, Section 36(1)(va) applies, and belated deposits are not deductible, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal restored the issue of excess interest income to the AO for fresh adjudication. It upheld the deletion of additions under Section 14A, finding no exempt income was earned, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the provision for post-retirement medical benefits.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) regarding the denial of deduction for premium paid on share acquisition. The AO also erred in denying treaty benefits for short-term capital gains by merely reiterating his draft assessment order without proper verification.
The Tribunal found that the tax authorities erred in not appreciating the material on record and that the assessee was unable to participate due to Covid-19 protocols. The grounds related to procedural fairness were allowed, and the issue on merits was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding the assessment invalid due to limitation. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the Revenue's grounds unsubstantiated and relying on established High Court precedents regarding the reckoning of assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the bad debt claim. It agreed with the lower authorities that the assessee was not involved in the business of real estate and had not maintained any books of accounts or offered income from such activities for tax. The amount was considered a capital investment of a personal nature.
The Tribunal noted that the documentary evidence and submissions regarding the cash deposits and bank interest were not examined by the AO. Therefore, both issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal restored the issue of excess interest income to the AO for fresh adjudication. It upheld the deletion of additions under Section 14A, finding no exempt income was earned, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the provision for post-retirement medical benefits.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was solely based on filing an application in the wrong field code. The assessee was permitted to correct the mistake, and the issue was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to correct the error.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the investment was met from gifts from his brother but failed to provide evidence before the lower authorities. Considering the circumstances, one last opportunity was granted to the assessee to explain the sources of investment.
The Tribunal held that calculating notional rent at a flat 7% of investment value is not sustainable. The Annual Letable Value (ALV) should be determined based on comparative rates in the area or Municipal Rateable Value.
The Tribunal restored the issue of foreign exchange fluctuations to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's grounds were rejected based on this restoration.
The Tribunal restored the issue of foreign exchange fluctuations to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's grounds were rejected based on this restoration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. A remand report from the Assessing Officer confirmed the genuineness of the transactions and the creditors, as payments were cleared in a subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the cost of acquisition and improvement with credible evidence. The AO was justified in computing the capital gain based on available information. The assessee's conduct in filing a return and participating in proceedings cured any initial procedural irregularities regarding notice.
The Tribunal considered the application filed by the assessee requesting the withdrawal of the appeal. The application clearly stated that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' for the Assessment Year 2015-16 and had obtained a Certificate in Form 3 from the Designated Authority. The assessee also confirmed the deposit of tax and eligibility for refund under the scheme. Noting the contents of this application, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained. Following a previous decision with similar facts, the Tribunal affirmed the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal following the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the NFAC's findings.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the NFAC/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to attend the appellate proceedings and respond to queries.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the NFAC/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to attend the appellate proceedings and respond to queries.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the PCIT were already decided in favour of the assessee on merits by higher authorities. It also found that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if not deposited by the prescribed due dates under the respective acts, cannot be allowed as a deduction, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.