Loading ITAT cases…
486 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal held that the bad debt claim was not allowable as it was not taken into account for computing income in any previous year and appeared to be a capital loss. The issue regarding properties deemed to be let out was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the bad debt claim was not allowable as it was not taken into account for computing income in any previous year and appeared to be a capital loss. The issue regarding properties deemed to be let out was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh for filing appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The tribunal held that Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. should be excluded as a comparable due to functional differences. It also directed the deletion of the additional 3% markup applied by the TPO, finding it unsupported by analysis.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as its tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the Board for appeals to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable in view of CBDT circular no. 21 of 2015, which specifies monetary limits for filing appeals. The Tribunal clarified that its decision was not on the merits of the issue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a co-ordinate bench's order. It was held that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by the assessee, managed through Portfolio Management Services (PMS), resulted in capital gains and not business income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate the share transaction. The deficiencies raised by the Revenue regarding the purchase and sale of shares, ownership, holding period, price, and buyer identity were not explained.
The Tribunal held that consistent with its previous decisions, disallowance of expenditure should be restricted to 50%, allowing the balance 50%.
The CIT(A) correctly held that the dividend distribution was a clerical error and should be Rs. 7.5 crores. The Tribunal found the Revenue's grounds of appeal to be misconceived and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the Rs. 10 lakh limit as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the Section 14A disallowance, finding that the assessee had incurred expenses for earning dividend income which were debited to the capital account. The Tribunal also directed that short-term capital gains on share sales be treated as capital gains and not business income, following a prior decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on leased assets, deleted disallowance of interest expenditure, and upheld the deletion of penalty. However, it dismissed the grounds related to Section 14A and interest under Sections 234B and 234D.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A, finding the estimate reasonable. It also affirmed the exclusion of accrued interest on OFCPNs, relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated based on the ground of donation, as there was no full and true disclosure. However, the claim for set off of long-term capital loss against short-term capital gain was considered to have been examined and accepted in the original assessment, thus not a valid ground for reassessment.
The Tribunal held that consistent with its previous decisions, disallowance of expenditure should be restricted to 50%, allowing the balance 50%.
The Tribunal held that consistent with its previous decisions, disallowance of expenditure should be restricted to 50%, allowing the balance 50%.
The Tribunal held that the forfeited amount on share warrants is a capital receipt and not taxable as revenue. It also held that losses and depreciation from earlier years, already set off against other businesses, cannot be notionally brought forward to reduce profits for Section 80IA deduction.
The Tribunal held that the grounds for rejection, relating to supporting employees' welfare and arranging international sports visits, were not contrary to charitable purposes as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal found that these activities did not constitute trade or business.
The Tribunal held that since the addition for depreciation on goodwill was deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the gifts were genuine and their sources were proved, as declarations from the donors residing abroad, along with their financial details and banking channel transactions, were furnished. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal, following various judicial pronouncements, held that strategic investments made in group companies should be excluded when calculating disallowance under Section 14A. The AO was directed to verify the claim and exclude such investments.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the Rs. 10 lakh limit as per CBDT instruction. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as per the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that payments for pay TV channel subscriptions fall under the definition of 'work' in Section 194C, not 'royalty' under Section 194J. Therefore, TDS deduction under Section 194C was appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153C were without jurisdiction as the incriminating documents were found during a survey, not a search, and no satisfaction note was recorded. Additionally, the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it as not pressed, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 which applies retrospectively to pending appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit.
The Tribunal held that the payment made by the assessee was in the nature of compensation for alternative accommodation and not 'rent' as defined under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that payments for pay TV channel subscriptions fall under the definition of 'work' in Section 194C, not 'royalty' under Section 194J. Therefore, TDS deduction under Section 194C was appropriate.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent accounting policy of offering income from expired vouchers in subsequent years, which was previously accepted by the Revenue. It held that the Revenue cannot disturb this method without cogent evidence of distortion or inconsistency.
The Tribunal held that since the addition for depreciation on goodwill was deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the addition for depreciation on goodwill was deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to 'karigars' were not contractual, thus Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. However, it found that the assessee had not sufficiently established the genuineness of the entire payment, but later deleted the 20% ad-hoc disallowance based on evidence produced during remand.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to demonstrate that the expenses disallowed pertained to earning exempt income. The assessee had already made substantial voluntary disallowances, and the AO did not record objective satisfaction based on relevant facts before invoking Rule 8D.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on leased assets, deleted disallowance of interest expenditure, and upheld the deletion of penalty. However, it dismissed the grounds related to Section 14A and interest under Sections 234B and 234D.
The Tribunal found that the sole reason for rejection was the non-submission of the duly stamped and sealed trust deed. Since the assessee now possesses the correct document, the matter was sent back to the DIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition for shares allotted during demutualization should be considered as per Section 55(2)(ab), and depreciation claimed on the BSE card does not preclude this. Regarding Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to administrative expenses, excluding interest as the assessee had sufficient own funds.
The Tribunal held that since the addition for depreciation on goodwill was deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not stand. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions, as the issues were covered by earlier precedents in the assessee's own case. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment and previous ITAT decisions were relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the balance sheets of the partnership firm, which reflected a higher building cost accepted by the AO in prior years, should be considered. For the deemed let out property issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee has completed all their obligations and applied for the Occupation Certificate within the stipulated time, the delay in issuance by the authorities should not be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had included the impugned sum in its turnover on an accrual basis. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the addition by the AO would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the statement of the third party could not be used against the assessee without a proper opportunity for cross-examination. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to grant an effective opportunity for cross-examination and re-adjudicate the issue.
The Tribunal held that the assessment is bad in law in the absence of proof of issuance and service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT Vs Salman Khan.
The Tribunal held that the assessee correctly valued its unsold flats at cost or net realizable value, whichever was lower, as per accounting standards. It also directed the AO to correct arithmetical errors in the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds is an allowable expenditure if it is for the purpose of business, even if the funds are advanced as interest-free loans to a sister concern or partner. The decision relies on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s S.A. Builders.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds is an allowable expenditure if it is for the purpose of business, even if the funds are advanced as interest-free loans to a sister concern or partner. The decision relies on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s S.A. Builders.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153C were without jurisdiction as the incriminating documents were found during a survey, not a search, and no satisfaction note was recorded. Additionally, the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit.