Loading ITAT cases…
65 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that interest paid on a loan used for acquiring a property is to be considered as part of the cost of acquisition. The facts of the present case were distinguished from a cited case where interest was not directly linked to acquisition.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the Assessing Officer had a duty to prove the receipt of commission. However, considering the small quantum and peculiar facts, the Tribunal restricted the addition, granting partial relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is only entitled to the benefit of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for the amount actually remitted or received. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence that the disputed amount was taxable in Singapore on an accrual basis, the appeal was rejected.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF & ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance is warranted. The amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021, is applicable from 01.04.2021 onwards, implying legislative condonation of defaults prior to that date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is only entitled to the benefit of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for the amount actually remitted or received. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence that the disputed amount was taxable in Singapore on an accrual basis, the appeal was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is only entitled to the benefit of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for the amount actually remitted or received. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence that the disputed amount was taxable in Singapore on an accrual basis, the appeal was rejected.
The Tribunal admitted the fresh evidence of refund of share application money. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to verify these documents and the treatment of the transaction by both the assessee and the share applicants.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is only entitled to the benefit of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for the amount actually remitted or received. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence that the remaining amount was taxable in Singapore on an accrual basis, the appeal was rejected.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and mechanical, lacking proper reasoning. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering all documents and affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is only entitled to the benefit of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for the amount actually remitted or received. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence that the disputed amount was taxable in Singapore on an accrual basis, the appeal was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue is bound by the resolution plan approved by the NCLT. Since the Revenue's claim was only partially addressed in the plan, no further claims could be pursued beyond what was stipulated.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue is bound by the resolution plan approved by the NCLT. Since the Revenue's claim was only partially addressed in the plan, no further claims could be pursued beyond what was stipulated.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, especially considering the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had incorrectly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had correctly allowed the deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. The reasoning was based on the principle that once a research facility is approved by the DSIR, the entire expenditure incurred on the R&D facility should be allowed for weighted deduction as provided under Section 35(2AB). The Tribunal noted that the filing of Form 3CL by the assessee did not arise in such a situation, as it is an internal mechanism between government departments. Relying on the coordinate bench decision in Texaco Rail & Engineering Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the AO's order was not erroneous, as the view taken was a possible view. Therefore, the PCIT could not hold the AO's order to be erroneous simply because he disagreed with it. The impugned revision order under Section 263 was quashed, and the AO's order under Section 143(3) was restored. However, it was clarified that if the prescribed authority subsequently did not approve the expenditure or quantified it at a lesser amount, the deduction could be modified accordingly.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the Section 43B deduction, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal remitted the issues of another Section 43B claim and MAT credit to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the Section 43B deduction, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal remitted the issues of another Section 43B claim and MAT credit to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the ROC fees paid for increasing share capital for business purposes should be allowed as a revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Act, not under Section 35D. The disallowance under Section 14A was also directed to be re-examined.
The Tribunal held that the issue of services rendered by M/s. SRSR had been decided in favour of the assessees in earlier assessment years. It further noted that the Assessing Officer had not determined the market rate for the services and that the payee did not fall under the specified categories of relatives under Section 40A(2)(b).
The Tribunal held that the issue of services rendered by M/s. SRSR had been decided in favour of the assessees in earlier assessment years. It further noted that the Assessing Officer had not determined the market rate for the services and that the payee did not fall under the specified categories of relatives under Section 40A(2)(b).
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish that the assessees represented the estate of the deceased or had intermeddled with it. The deceased's Will bequeathed his estate to his grandchildren, not the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish that the assessees represented the estate of the deceased or had intermeddled with it. The deceased's Will bequeathed his estate to his grandchildren, not the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish that the assessees represented the estate of the deceased or had intermeddled with it. The deceased's Will bequeathed his estate to his grandchildren, not the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the gross receipts as per Form 26AS, which was higher than the P&L account figures, and had applied reasonable profit rates. The Pr. CIT's observations regarding discrepancies were found to be based on a misappreciation of the AO's assessment order. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that while interest on receivables constitutes an international transaction, the TPO/AO erred in benchmarking it using SBI deposit rates instead of segment-specific comparable instances or LIBOR rates. Consequently, the adjustment was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue of services rendered by M/s. SRSR had been decided in favour of the assessees in earlier assessment years. It further noted that the Assessing Officer had not determined the market rate for the services and that the payee did not fall under the specified categories of relatives under Section 40A(2)(b).
The Tribunal held that the ROC fees paid for increasing share capital for business purposes should be allowed as a revenue expenditure under Section 37 of the Act, not under Section 35D. The disallowance under Section 14A was also directed to be re-examined.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the Section 43B deduction, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal remitted the issues of another Section 43B claim and MAT credit to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assessment, which considered the cost to the builder plus non-refundable deposit as sale consideration and the cost to the builder for Section 54F exemption, was a plausible method. Therefore, the revision order under Section 263 was unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that while interest on receivables can be considered an international transaction, the TPO's method of benchmarking using SBI deposit rates was incorrect. The adjustment made by the AO on account of interest on outstanding receivables was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from deposits in nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in The Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Limited.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue of ALP adjustment on advances to the TPO for re-examination, citing a previous order. Regarding corporate guarantee fees, it was held to be an international transaction, and a lumpsum commission rate of 0.5% of the utilized amount was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal restored the issue of ALP adjustment on advances to the TPO for re-examination, citing a previous order. Regarding corporate guarantee fees, it was held to be an international transaction, and a lumpsum commission rate of 0.5% of the utilized amount was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order. It found that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 153C was invalid as the seized document did not belong to the assessee. Additionally, the assessment was found to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal restored the issue of ALP adjustment on advances to the TPO for re-examination, citing a previous order. Regarding corporate guarantee fees, it was held to be an international transaction, and a lumpsum commission rate of 0.5% of the utilized amount was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal restored the issue of ALP adjustment on advances to the TPO for re-examination, citing a previous order. Regarding corporate guarantee fees, it was held to be an international transaction, and a lumpsum commission rate of 0.5% of the utilized amount was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that donations were voluntary and for a corpus fund, depreciation was allowable, and provisions for gratuity and prior period expenses were valid. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that donations were voluntary and for a corpus fund, depreciation was allowable, and provisions for gratuity and prior period expenses were valid. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that donations were voluntary and for a corpus fund, depreciation was allowable, and provisions for gratuity and prior period expenses were valid. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that donations were voluntary and for a corpus fund, depreciation was allowable, and provisions for gratuity and prior period expenses were valid. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that donations were voluntary and for a corpus fund, depreciation was allowable, and provisions for gratuity and prior period expenses were valid. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that donations were voluntary and for a corpus fund, depreciation was allowable, and provisions for gratuity and prior period expenses were valid. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that donations were voluntary and for a corpus fund, depreciation was allowable, and provisions for gratuity and prior period expenses were valid. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C(1) of the Act mandates the use of fair market value for determining capital gains. It also noted that Section 50D, which might have been relevant for constructed area valuation, was not applicable retrospectively to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to use the SRO value was upheld.
The Tribunal found merit in both parties' arguments. It noted that the High Court had indeed quashed the Revenue's action, but it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to verify if the assessee's capital asset was covered by that decision. Therefore, the issue was restored for fresh adjudication.