Loading ITAT cases…
570 orders · Page 8 of 12
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded back to the AO. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's request for 'telescopy' upon furnishing cash purchase bills and to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of engineering and design services, including structural steel detailing through software, qualified for deduction under Section 10B. This decision was based on a previous ruling in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the AO's invocation of Section 69C for unexplained expenditure was on a wrong footing as the assessee had explained the source of expenditure through banking channels. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to allow VAT expenses, finding that the AO had made the disallowance without valid reason.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. It also confirmed that rental income from letting out an office building should be taxed as 'income from house property' and not 'business income'.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the funds received on demerger could not be taxed as deemed dividend. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow expenses incurred on demerger as deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, finding it fair and in line with judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a detailed examination of the issue of disallowance under Section 14A and had taken a possible view that no disallowance was warranted for interest expenses. The Principal CIT's differing opinion on the same facts did not render the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the issue of disallowance under Section 14A and taken a possible view that no disallowance was called for on interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii), given the strategic nature of investments. Therefore, the revisionary order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal restored the issue of air conditioning and other charges to the AO for fresh adjudication, following previous tribunal orders. For fee, legal, and professional expenses, the Tribunal allowed the deduction, holding that it was incurred to maintain the corporate status and earn income.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses were disallowed due to lack of evidence. Sponsorship expenses were allowed as revenue expenditure. Depreciation on technical know-how was allowed. Expenses on zero coupon convertible bonds were allowed as revenue expenditure. Disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed. Long-term capital gains were held to be taxable in the year of the MOU, not the year of registration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was based on ad-hocism and not on any incriminating material to demonstrate deemed concealment of income. Therefore, the levy of penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal acknowledged the genuine reasons for non-attendance and the need for a fair hearing. Considering the assessee's illiteracy in tax matters and other peculiar facts, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made the claim under a bonafide belief that the interest income was inextricably linked to its business. Since all facts were fully disclosed in the return and audit report, and the claim stemmed from a mistaken interpretation of law, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as there was no tax impact. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be penalized twice for the same default. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify if the demands for both assessment years were identical and if the demand for the earlier year had been settled.
The Tribunal held that since the underlying addition on account of disallowance of depreciation was set aside by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty levied on that basis was unsustainable. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the fee under section 234E was not leviable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. However, the interest for late payment of TDS was sustained as mandatory.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on depreciation and Section 14A disallowance, finding the car was used for business and no exempt income was earned. However, the issue of prior period expenses was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the expenditure's veracity.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground regarding the violation of natural justice. It restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the disallowance by the CIT(A). It followed the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd., which held that disallowance under Section 14A requires actual receipt of income not included in total income.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, it was held that no further disallowance under Section 14A was required beyond what the assessee suo-moto disallowed, as investments were made from own surplus funds and interest income exceeded interest expenditure.
The Tribunal followed its previous order for the assessee's own case, allowing the claim for interest on borrowed capital. It also restored the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the AO for fresh adjudication, following a High Court decision regarding interest-free funds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-availability in India. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the editing equipment, based on their nature and certifications, qualified as computers or computer software. Therefore, they were eligible for depreciation at the rate of 60%.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed belatedly and was not maintainable as the grounds of appeal challenged the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263, not the revision order itself. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of royalty payment requires fresh determination of ALP by the AO, considering fresh transfer pricing studies and evidence. For employee contributions to PF and ESIC, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance, following the Supreme Court's decision in Alom Extrusions Ltd.
The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred for strategic investments, which are part of the assessee's business, is allowable. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not attracted for such strategic investments.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely on the basis of an investigation report without allowing cross-examination or confronting the assessee with evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors.
The Tribunal held that the issue was settled by its own previous decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of M/s. Chennai Properties. Therefore, the income from letting out property should be treated as business income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of travel expenses was justified, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. It also ruled that business loss must be set off against capital gains as per Section 71(2) of the Act, citing a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not comply with the disclosure made under oath by adjusting the offered income through capitalization rather than a complete write-off. The CIT(A)'s order was considered a non-speaking order for not addressing these issues.
The Tribunal held that a protective assessment is invalid without a substantive assessment. Since no substantive assessment was made against the husband, the protective assessment against the assessee was without the sanction of law. Therefore, the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains should be treated as capital gains and not business income, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. Regarding the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal restricted it to 2% of the exempt income.
The Tribunal decided to exclude 'Motilal Oswal Investment Advisers Pvt. Ltd.' as a comparable, stating it's a merchant banker and not functionally similar. However, 'ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd.' and 'IDC India Ltd.' were directed to be included as comparables.
The Tribunal held that the 15% addition by the CIT(A) was higher than the 12.5% approved by High Court judgments. Therefore, the addition made by the CIT(A) was considered fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the loss claimed was due to the diminution in the value of closing stock, valued consistently by the assessee as per market rates. Since the valuation method was consistently followed and supported by stock exchange quotations, the loss was considered genuine and allowable.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely on the basis of an investigation report without allowing cross-examination or confronting the assessee with evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely on the basis of an investigation report without allowing cross-examination or confronting the assessee with evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the AO failed to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, acknowledging the assessee's status as an individual in the unorganized sector, his dependence on consultants for complex TDS provisions, and the fact that TDS was deposited with interest.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, acknowledging the assessee's status as an individual in the unorganized sector, his dependence on consultants for complex TDS provisions, and the fact that TDS was deposited with interest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction of license fees is proper, provided there is a statutory obligation to make the payment in advance and the assessee consistently follows this accounting method. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the claim subject to these findings.
The Tribunal held that while the LTCG was taxable as STT was not paid on off-market transactions, the assessee had made a complete disclosure of facts. Therefore, claiming an incorrect exemption due to a bonafide misconception did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal noted that the additions on which penalties were levied had been deleted by a Special Bench of the ITAT. Therefore, the penalties were liable to be deleted. The matter of reconciliation of the addition quantum in one year was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had disclosed all facts in the return and assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that many issues were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case or involved newly introduced provisions, thus not attracting penalty.
The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal on prior period expenses and depreciation on energy-efficient devices, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders. For forex derivative loss, depreciation on rented buildings, and interest on capital WIP, the ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had remanded the issues to the AO for further verification, thus dismissing the revenue's grounds. The ITAT also dismissed the assessee's appeal on repairs to rented buildings due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO should not have reallocated director's remuneration without finding fault in the books of accounts or the nature of duties performed by the directors. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that previous orders for the same assessment years had quashed the search assessments under section 153A due to the absence of a valid search warrant. Consequently, the penalties levied based on these assessments were also deemed invalid.
The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal on prior period expenses and depreciation on energy-efficient devices, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders. For forex derivative loss, depreciation on rented buildings, and interest on capital WIP, the ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had remanded the issues to the AO for further verification, thus dismissing the revenue's grounds. The ITAT also dismissed the assessee's appeal on repairs to rented buildings due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the applicable CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the BMC charges, in this case, were in the nature of a premium for obtaining exclusive rights (FSI) and not a 'fee' as contemplated under Section 43B(a) which typically refers to service fees. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was set aside.