Loading ITAT cases…
532 orders · Page 5 of 11
The Tribunal followed its previous orders for the assessee's own case, holding that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year in question. It directed the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance at 2% of the exempt income.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming interest disallowance under Section 14A based on judicial precedent and the company's capital structure. The issue of management fees was remanded to the AO for further verification. The adjustment to book profits under Section 115JB was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of bogus purchases cannot be deleted entirely, but the amount of gross profit already disclosed by the assessee corresponding to the alleged bogus purchases should be deducted from the addition. The matter was remanded to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted by the Tribunal in a previous quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty had no basis to stand.
The Tribunal held that not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases could be added to the income. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order by directing the AO to take 12.5% of sales as gross profit on bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases could be added to the income. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order by directing the AO to take 12.5% of sales as gross profit on bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted a conflicting decision by the Gujarat High Court. Following the higher judicial authority, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings that similar capital gains should be treated as capital gains and not business income. The cross-objection regarding TDS disallowance was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision, held that the transfer/sale of software in this case is not taxable as royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal held that not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases could be added to the income. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order by directing the AO to take 12.5% of sales as gross profit on bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no factual or legal infirmity. The Tribunal noted that the AO himself had admitted the genuineness of transactions in the remand reports, making the appeals unnecessary.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by its own consistent decisions and the principle of consistency. Therefore, the disallowance of export promotion expenses incurred outside India was deleted.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, held that the sale consideration of shares should not be treated as income from undisclosed sources. The AO erred in treating the purchase of shares as bogus.
The Tribunal deleted additions related to credit card payments and foreign travel expenses, subject to verification. It restored issues regarding interest income and service charges to the AO for verification. The Tribunal allowed depreciation on UPS at a higher rate and dismissed the grounds related to interest u/s 244A and penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by its own consistent decisions and the principle of consistency. Therefore, the disallowance of export promotion expenses incurred outside India was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication without any specific findings or directions, the provisions of Section 153(2A) applied, and the assessment order was subject to the prescribed time limitation. Therefore, the AO's order was vitiated on grounds of limitation.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, held that the sale consideration of shares should not be treated as income from undisclosed sources. The AO erred in treating the purchase of shares as bogus.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the assessee consistently treated share transactions as investments in prior years and the revenue had not shown any difference in the current year's facts. The principle of consistency was applied.
The Tribunal held that only the profit component of unverified expenditure is taxable, not the entire amount. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the impugned purchases to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that government companies cannot be considered as comparables. It also directed the AO/TPO to re-examine comparables by applying a turnover filter of 1/10th to 10 times and to exclude infrastructure and overhead recoveries from related party transactions. The rejection of Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd was also found unjustified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted details to the AO, but the AO passed the order without considering them. The Tribunal agreed to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to partly allow the disallowance under Section 14A, delete the disallowance for customer loyalty programs, and allow depreciation at 60% on computer peripherals and software, following its own previous orders.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, held that the sale consideration of shares should not be treated as income from undisclosed sources. The AO erred in treating the purchase of shares as bogus.
The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely based on an income offered before the Settlement Commission, especially when the proceedings before the Commission did not result in an order. No incriminating material was found to substantiate the undisclosed income.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted details to the AO, but the AO passed the order without considering them. The Tribunal agreed to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that losses on foreign currency forward contracts were incidental to the export business and should be treated as business loss, not speculative loss. The issue of interest allocation for IPO funding was restored to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that interest received from New Mangalore Port Trust and interest/discount charges from customers should be treated as business income. However, it upheld the FAA's decision regarding miscellaneous income due to lack of substantiation by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not appropriately addressed the assessee's contentions regarding differences in risk perception and the impact of free raw material supply from the associated enterprise. Therefore, the matter was set aside for redetermination.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to a lack of clear finding and satisfaction by the Assessing Officer regarding the specific charge. The non-striking off of relevant portions in the show-cause notice and the inconsistent reasoning in the penalty order violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored the grounds of appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done because the business income of H.M. Trading Corporation had been assessed separately in earlier and subsequent assessment years, and the AO was directed to consider these orders.
The Tribunal held that only the profit component of unverified expenditure is taxable, not the entire amount. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the impugned purchases to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India, where the agents do not have a PE in India and income does not accrue or arise in India, is not taxable in India. Therefore, TDS was not required, and the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that all additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) had been deleted by a coordinate bench in the quantum appeal. Consequently, the penalty order no longer survived.
The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely based on an income offered before the Settlement Commission, especially when the proceedings before the Commission did not result in an order. No incriminating material was found to substantiate the undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO was invalid because a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued and served upon the assessee before completing the reassessment. This failure was considered a jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to a lack of clear finding and satisfaction by the Assessing Officer regarding the specific charge for which the penalty was levied, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the penalty order might be time-barred under Section 275 and that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without fully considering the legal ground. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the reasonable cause of internal disputes in the CA firm. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the quantum appeal back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issues of depreciation, ROC fees, commission, and advertisement/publicity expenses back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances was set aside due to lack of independent findings.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of purchases required fresh examination by the AO as the CIT(A) confirmed it without calling for explanations. For labour charges, the Tribunal found that cash payment alone doesn't prove non-genuineness and that TDS issues also warranted a fresh look by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an appeal before the jurisdictional High Court regarding the same assessment year and the appeal had been admitted. The AO was directed to wait for the High Court's decision before deciding the ground of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A prior to the amendment effective June 1, 2015. The amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not approbate and reprobate by taking contradictory stands – claiming to be a cooperative bank to get penalty relief and then claiming to be a cooperative society for Section 80P deduction. The disallowance of audit fees and gratuity provision was also upheld due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal decided several grounds partly, allowing some claims like sales promotion expenses and guest house food expenses, while upholding disallowances for other guest house expenses. Certain grounds were dismissed as infructuous or not pressed, and one ground regarding share capital expenses was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was made on a difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of law, and the assessee had made full disclosures. Merely making a claim that is not accepted by the Revenue does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.