Loading ITAT cases…
373 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS cannot be granted when the deductor has failed to deposit the deducted amount. However, following a CBDT circular, the AO was directed not to take recovery action for the outstanding tax liability.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when no exempt income is earned. It also ruled that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is allowable as it is an intangible asset. Finally, it was held that if sufficient interest-free funds are available, advances are presumed to be made from such funds.
The Tribunal held that the capital subsidy received from the Government of Haryana should be treated as a capital receipt, following its own previous decisions and High Court rulings. It also held that the commission paid to foreign agents for sales promotion did not constitute 'fees for technical services' and thus disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution under Section 251 of the Income-tax Act. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted an opportunity to prove the nature of the asset (long-term vs. short-term capital gain) and the extent of ownership by furnishing evidence. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and deemed to have never been issued, as it lacked the mandatory DIN as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The circular clearly states that non-conformity renders the communication invalid and treated as never issued.
The Tribunal held that the capital subsidy received from the Government of Haryana should be treated as a capital receipt, following its own previous decisions and High Court rulings. It also held that the commission paid to foreign agents for sales promotion did not constitute 'fees for technical services' and thus disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were invalid as they were passed without the mandatory DIN as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the impugned AO orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were invalid as they were passed without the mandatory DIN as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the impugned AO orders were quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the cost of improvement for both properties. It held that improvements like air conditioning, modular kitchens, and lifts are essential for habitability and value enhancement, and the deduction for the Bangalore property was valid even if registered in parents' names initially.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not treat the credit note amount as unaccounted sales, as the transaction was benchmarked at arm's length and accepted by the AO previously. However, certain expenses were upheld as disallowed due to lack of proper documentation and evidence of entry into the SEZ premises.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the entire appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Both parties agreed that the appeal should be dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the cost of improvement for both properties. It held that improvements like air conditioning, modular kitchens, and lifts are essential for habitability and value enhancement, and the deduction for the Bangalore property was valid even if registered in parents' names initially.
The Tribunal held that the right to broadcast live events does not constitute copyright or a process, and therefore, payments for these rights are not taxable as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi). The Department cannot treat payments for live rights as part of a bundle of rights when the agreement clearly bifurcates the consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CPC erred in processing the return under section 143(1) by making an incorrect adjustment to the capital loss and failing to issue an intimation. The case was remanded to the AO for rectification of the mistake.
The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s order to be cryptic and illegible. In the interest of justice and to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to pass a speaking and legible order after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s order to be cryptic and illegible. In the interest of justice and to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to pass a speaking and legible order after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s order to be cryptic and illegible. In the interest of justice and to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to pass a speaking and legible order after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s order to be cryptic and illegible. In the interest of justice and to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to pass a speaking and legible order after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were invalid as they were passed without the mandatory DIN as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the impugned AO orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were invalid as they were passed without the mandatory DIN as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the impugned AO orders were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib), noting that the assessee had obtained a valuation certificate based on the Discounted Cash Flow method. Regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that since the same applicants were considered acceptable under Section 56(2)(viib), their identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness could not be questioned for the Section 68 addition.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the issue after the outcome of the exemption application is determined.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing the assessee to justify the FMV of the shares with a valuation report. The AO was instructed to examine the report and decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a dependent agent PE in India, following its own prior decisions. It also directed that interest on income-tax refund be taxed at 10% as per the India-Ireland DTAA and allowed credit for TDS. The levy of interest under Section 234A was to be verified as if the return was validly filed.
The Tribunal held that for a payment to qualify as a donation under Section 80G, it must be voluntary and not made under a legal obligation. Payments made as part of mandatory CSR compliance under the Companies Act, 2013, do not meet this test of voluntariness.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the issue after the outcome of the exemption application is determined.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not duly consider the evidence submitted by the assessee. Given that registration under Section 12AA was granted later, the case was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after verifying the claims and providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding ESOP expenses and reimbursement of circuit expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances. However, it allowed the Revenue's appeal on employee PF contribution, reversing the CIT(A)'s order.
The CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to recompute the income for AY 2009-10 by allowing the set-off of the brought forward loss from AY 2008-09, as the AO himself had subsequently reinstated this loss. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal against this decision.
The Tribunal held that the amount received was merely an advance payment and not sale consideration, as the land was finally transferred and possession was given in 2020, much later than the agreement to sell. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The tribunal took the withdrawal letter on record. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The NFAC held that the assessment order was invalid because it was passed in the name of a non-existent entity, Ameriprise India Pvt Ltd, after its conversion to an LLP.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's order was invalid and deemed to have never been issued because it did not comply with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which mandates the quoting of DIN in all communications. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served as it was sent to the old address despite the AO being aware of the assessee's new address. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid.
The Tribunal held that since the advance was received in April 2015, before the amendment to Section 269SS by the Finance Act, 2015 (effective from 01.06.2015), the assessee had reasonable cause for accepting cash. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for non-compliance to be genuine and directed the Commissioner to decide the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the issue of timely deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC based on the actual disbursement of salary, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior AY, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to determine the due date for deposit based on the actual date of salary disbursement.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income of Rs. 1615/-.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order under Section 263. It found that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding the agricultural income declared by the assessee, and the PCIT's conclusion that the agreements were bogus was not adequately supported.
The tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not maintainable in the current format due to the company being under liquidation and the absence of the official liquidator. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to the official liquidator to refile them.
The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss is an allowable expenditure, following its own previous decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding depreciation on Windmill Turbine Generators and the disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the notice u/s 148 was not validly served as it was sent to an old address when a new address was available from 2011. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.
The tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not maintainable in the current format due to the company being under liquidation and the absence of the official liquidator. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to the official liquidator to refile them.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to set aside appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, including a decision on the admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that for penalty under Section 271AAB to be applicable, there must be undisclosed income found during a search. Since the rental income was regularly offered to tax and the AO did not provide any basis for the differential amount, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in judgment over the commercial wisdom of an investor's decision to invest in a loss-making company. The assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence, and the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below ought to have considered the assessee's submissions and that the impugned order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's habit of withdrawing and redepositing cash, though perhaps unusual, was supported by a cash flow chart. Since no defect was pointed out in this practice, the assessee had discharged her initial burden of explaining the source of the deposit.