Loading ITAT cases…
311 orders · Page 4 of 7
The Tribunal held that the loss from the abandoned project was a revenue loss allowable under Section 37 of the Act, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. The issue of prior period income was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as no notice under Section 143(2) was issued by the jurisdictional officer (ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata). Furthermore, the notice issued by the previous officer (ITO, Ward-34(2), Kolkata) was without jurisdiction, and there was no valid transfer of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the loss from the abandoned project was a revenue loss allowable under Section 37 of the Act, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. The issue of prior period income was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that foreign currency loans to AEs should be benchmarked at LIBOR rates and that corporate guarantees provided by the assessee were shareholder services and not international transactions requiring adjustment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming a partial disallowance of expenses related to tools and tackles. The disallowance was limited to unvouched purchases and items wrongly claimed as scrap.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal deserved to be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which is binding on revenue authorities.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions and had not adjudicated the issues on merits as required. Therefore, the case was remanded for fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that foreign currency loans to AEs should be benchmarked at LIBOR rates and that corporate guarantees provided by the assessee were shareholder services and not international transactions requiring adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should verify the trust's objects against the prescribed charitable activities. The Tribunal found the trust's activities in education and medical relief, along with general public utility, to be eligible for Section 12AA registration.
The Tribunal held that if the primary reason for reopening the assessment is deleted, the entire reassessment proceedings are vitiated, and no further additions can be sustained. The addition of Rs. 75 lakhs was therefore annulled.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Section 80P deduction on rental and bank interest income based on previous precedents. However, it allowed the appeal for statistical purposes to re-examine the disallowance using the netting principle.
The Tribunal held that the payment for pollution control equipment was an outright sale, not a fee for technical services, and thus TDS was not required. For shipping expenses, it was held that the payments were reimbursements without profit, not attracting TDS.
The Tribunal held that there was no unreconciled difference in the purchase transactions, as the AO had erroneously included advances, LC charges, and bank charges. Regarding the rent payment, the Tribunal found that TDS was duly deducted and remitted, making the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the AO made an ad hoc disallowance without rejecting the audited books of account. It noted that in the assessee's own case for a prior AY, similar additions were deleted by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal had no basis as the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions based on a higher tribunal's order. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances/additions was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that similar grounds were decided by a co-ordinate bench in previous assessment years. Following judicial consistency, the Tribunal held that rent on computer hire was reimbursement, subscription/technology fees had no profit element, and insurance expenses were for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the loans were either from existing creditors or were opening balances from previous years, and the genuineness of transactions, identity, and creditworthiness of creditors were accepted by the revenue in prior years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the rental income from the warehouse should be treated as business income. They found the assessee was engaged in an organized activity to commercially exploit the warehouse facilities.
The Tribunal held that the payment for pollution control equipment was an outright sale, not a fee for technical services, and thus TDS was not required. For shipping expenses, it was held that the payments were reimbursements without profit, not attracting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO failed to record that the escapement of income was due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly, as required by the first proviso to Section 147.
The Tribunal held that a show cause notice under Section 274 of the Act must clearly specify the charge against the assessee. Since the notice in this case was defective, the imposition of penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including High Court orders, which were not produced before the lower authorities. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including High Court orders, which were not produced before the lower authorities. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including High Court orders, which were not produced before the lower authorities. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The tribunal held that an appeal requires active prosecution and not just filing. Since the assessee failed to appear or prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s addition was not maintainable, considering the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and payments were made via account payee cheques. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in treating license fees as integral to business receipts and part of total turnover for profit estimation. The AO's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's argument that the assessee had not proven engagement in the milk business. The CIT(A)'s order, which accepted the taxpayer's details of milk sale/transportation business, was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for accepting cash loans exceeding Rs. 20,000 due to business exigency and the seller's insistence on completing the transaction by a specific date. Therefore, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that royalty and technical service fees are calculated on value addition and not directly on the import of raw materials. It further held that combining different international transactions under a single TNMM approach for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP) is impermissible, and transactions must be evaluated separately.
The Tribunal held that the royalty and technical service fees were not directly linked to the import of raw materials from the AE and that combining different international transactions for transfer pricing analysis under TNMM was impermissible. The TPO was justified in segregating these transactions.
The Tribunal held that switching between mutual fund schemes, where the capital remains with the mutual fund, does not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee acted with a bona fide belief, and penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the miscellaneous expenditures were necessary to bring the assets into existence and working condition, and thus should be capitalized. Depreciation on these capitalized costs is allowable and does not constitute double deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the advances were adjusted against regular bills which were admitted as income. Similarly, the unmeasured bills were admitted as income in the subsequent assessment year as per the assessee's accounting system.
The Tribunal held that the taxpayer had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders, including their income tax returns and bank statements. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action was inconsistent in accepting gains from intra-group transactions while disbelieving losses from similar transactions. The Tribunal found that the intra-group transactions were part of a restructuring effort and not a colourable device, especially since only a small portion of the loss was claimed for set-off.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in treating license fees as integral to business receipts and part of total turnover for profit estimation. The AO's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal deserved to be dismissed due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular mandates that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition for undisclosed income as the assessee had accounted for the income and the mismatch was due to erroneous TDS reporting by payees. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of royalty expenses as the liability crystallized in the current year. However, the addition for provision for bad debts was upheld in favour of the revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding that the Rs. 2,80,80,000/- was indeed double-counted. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection, directing that only the gross profit element of the remaining Rs. 57,32,418/- should be added.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s addition was not maintainable, considering the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and payments were made via account payee cheques. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition made by the AO.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal issue regarding the validity of reopening of assessment, which was a mandatory duty. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had obtained the tax audit report before the due date, even though the return was filed late. Since the audit was completed before the due date, the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that if employees' PF and ESI contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, no disallowance can be made under Section 43B. The amendments to Section 43B were held to be retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the income from warehousing should be treated as business income, not income from house property. This decision was based on previous rulings by the ITAT in the assessee's own cases.
The Tribunal held that investments made in construction of a new residential house within one year prior to the sale of the old asset are eligible for deduction under Section 54. The CIT(A)'s interpretation to deny claims for construction started before the sale was deemed illogical.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 4% of turnover, considering the assessee's past profit history. Depreciation was also to be allowed separately.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received only a net amount of Rs. 70,000 during the assessment year under consideration, with a significant portion being received in the preceding year and a large sum refunded. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had sufficient own funds to make investments, leading to a presumption that own funds were used for earning exempt income. Therefore, no further disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.