Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 2 of 3
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's explanation regarding agricultural income and savings. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the pending appeals could not be proceeded with. The claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished, and no proceedings can be continued.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for Rs. 3,99,500/- from the wife (Sreedhan and savings) and Rs. 3,97,000/- from the father (savings for grand-daughters) was plausible. However, the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of other creditors for the remaining amount.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merit and did not pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed TDS deposit is compensatory in nature and not a penalty or breach of law. Therefore, it is an allowable business expenditure.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain entities from the list of comparables for software development services. It also restored the issue of interest on receivables and management fee to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration based on specific directions.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings. Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, claims not part of the resolution plan are extinguished.
The Tribunal held that the continuation of pending proceedings against a corporate debtor is prohibited once CIRP commences. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished, and no proceedings can be continued for such claims.
The Tribunal held that the continuation of pending proceedings against a corporate debtor is prohibited once CIRP commences. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished, and no proceedings can be continued for such claims.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for rental income and accumulated cash. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition without proper verification of the remand report. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that payments for cloud-based services like data storage and transfer from AWS are not in the nature of royalty. Consequently, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on these payments.
The Tribunal held that the building's size, facilities, lack of municipal permission for residential use, and loan from an educational society indicated it was constructed for commercial purposes. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that the additional amount paid was not in the nature of interest as it was contingent upon the delay in the IPO and not related to the debt or debentures. Therefore, Section 40(a)(ia) was not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the building's size, facilities, lack of municipal permission for residential use, and loan from an educational society indicated it was constructed for commercial purposes. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's adjustment was unsustainable as no prescribed transfer pricing method was used to determine the ALP. It also noted that the written-off amounts were previously offered as income or sales and accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the limitation period of 4 years under Section 154(7) applies to both 'orders passed' and 'intimations' under Section 143(1). The purpose of the limitation is to provide finality to orders and intimations, and extending it indefinitely for intimations would lead to chaos.
The Tribunal held that expenditures incurred on doctors which are in the nature of personal benefits or prohibited by the Medical Council of India cannot be allowed as business expenditure. The disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) were found to be in order.
The Tribunal held that expenditures incurred on doctors which are in the nature of personal benefits or prohibited by the Medical Council of India cannot be allowed as business expenditure. The disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) were found to be in order.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor cannot be continued. The claims are frozen upon approval of a resolution plan, and any claims not part of the plan are extinguished.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor cannot be continued. The claims are frozen upon approval of a resolution plan, and any claims not part of the plan are extinguished.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor are prohibited. Therefore, the appeals could not be proceeded with during the CIRP.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor cannot be continued. The claims are frozen upon approval of a resolution plan, and any claims not part of the plan are extinguished.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gains should be treated as operating in nature, aligning with previous tribunal rulings. It also directed the exclusion of four specific companies from the list of comparables used for transfer pricing analysis.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee an opportunity to substantiate that the amount in Form 26AS was reconciled in the books of account and offered to tax. The AO is to decide the issue based on facts and law.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of dividend income received. It also rejected the assessee's argument that no disallowances could be made due to sufficient own funds or lack of incriminating material during search.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of dividend income received. It also rejected the assessee's argument that no disallowances could be made due to sufficient own funds or lack of incriminating material during search.
The Tribunal held that Vimta Labs Limited should be excluded as a comparable due to extraordinary circumstances leading to losses, as analyzed by the DRP. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of ignorance of law is not a valid excuse for non-compliance. The penalty was levied because no reasonable cause was established for the failure to file the AIR.
The Tribunal held that due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeal could not be proceeded with. The appeal was dismissed in limine, with liberty to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remanding the issue of including Sagarsoft (India) Limited as a comparable to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh examination. It also partly allowed the grounds related to interest on outstanding receivables, restricting it to LIBOR plus 250 basis points.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary enquiries regarding disallowance under Section 14A. The PCIT rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 to direct verification of this issue.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Appeals) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case, considering the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to appear and explain without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that once CIRP commences, the continuation of pending proceedings is prohibited. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished. The appeal was dismissed in limine, with liberty to seek restoration if necessitated by the CIRP outcome.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of dividend income received. It also rejected the assessee's argument that no disallowances could be made due to sufficient own funds or lack of incriminating material during search.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding VAT reduced from turnover was to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification. However, regarding EPF/ESI contributions deposited before the due date for filing the return, no disallowance under Section 43B was warranted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the ongoing CIRP and the moratorium provisions under the IBC, the appeal could not be proceeded with at that time. The appeal was dismissed in limine, with liberty to seek restoration if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.
The tribunal held that under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a moratorium prohibits the continuation of pending suits. Once a resolution plan is approved, claims not part of it are extinguished.
The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, pending proceedings against the corporate debtor are prohibited. Consequently, the appeal cannot be proceeded with during the CIRP.
The Tribunal held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against a corporate debtor once CIRP has commenced. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.
The Tribunal held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against a corporate debtor once CIRP has commenced. Claims not part of an approved resolution plan are extinguished.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual amount of dividend income received. It also rejected the assessee's argument that no disallowances could be made due to sufficient own funds or lack of incriminating material during search.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to adopt LIBOR+200 basis points for interest on loans to AEs. Regarding corporate guarantees, the Tribunal followed a High Court ruling that such guarantees are international transactions, overturning previous Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that due to the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) against the assessee and the moratorium declared under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The Tribunal granted leave to the parties to seek restoration of the appeals if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to adopt LIBOR+200 basis points for interest on loans to AEs. Regarding corporate guarantees, the Tribunal followed a High Court ruling that such guarantees are international transactions, overturning previous Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that due to the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) against the assessee and the moratorium declared under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The Tribunal granted leave to the parties to seek restoration of the appeals if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made requisite inquiries regarding disallowances under section 14A and 36(1)(iii). For the deduction under section 57(iii), while the order might have been erroneous, it was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the conditions for invoking section 263 were not met.
The Tribunal held that a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals cannot be proceeded with during the pendency of CIRP.
The Tribunal held that a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals cannot be proceeded with during the pendency of CIRP.
The Tribunal held that a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals cannot be proceeded with during the pendency of CIRP.