Loading ITAT cases…
426 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not genuine, the entire amount could not be treated as income. Only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be added back to the income.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C was invalid due to the absence of a proper satisfaction note from the searched person's Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessment was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that changing the method of accounting for sales returns and closing stock via a revised return is generally not permissible. However, for one assessment year, the Tribunal found the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the revised return and remitted the issue for a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that a legal ground regarding reopening of assessment can be raised for the first time before it. However, it found that there was no full disclosure of material facts by the assessee, thus upholding the reopening.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the agreement did not stipulate any compensation for cancellation. No new facts were presented to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine if the assessee possessed a valid taxi license. If so, depreciation should be allowed at 30% on motor cars used as taxis.
The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. The disallowance is only for expenditure incurred in relation to tax-exempt income.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee does not form part of gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. The assessee acts merely as a collecting agency for the government.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed a revised return and added the income, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reopening of assessment was valid and the addition on account of bogus purchases, after considering the Gross Profit declared by the assessee, was justified. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee in connection with the extraction or production of mineral oil are covered under Section 44BB, not Section 115A. This decision followed a co-ordinate bench ruling on an identical issue.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted as the assessee's own funds exceeded the investments. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowance was considered exorbitant and restricted to Rs. 10,000.
The Tribunal held that the unabsorbed depreciation from earlier assessment years could be carried forward and set off against current income. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case and decisions of the Gujarat High Court.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, which was decided in favor of the assessee. Following the principle of judicial consistency, the Tribunal applied the same findings to the present case.
The Tribunal held that amounts received for supply of materials and equipment under offshore supply contracts were not taxable in India. This was based on previous judgments of co-ordinate benches where similar contracts were concluded outside India.
The Tribunal held that the provision for taxation cannot be added to the income of the assessee and must be excluded. The inadvertent addition of this provision during XML generation constitutes a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that a legally admissible claim under Section 54EC should not be denied solely due to technical errors in filing the return. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of beneficial provisions even if the claim was made through a rectification application.
The corrigendum clarified that the assessment year in the cause title was inadvertently mentioned as '2011-12' and has now been corrected to '2012-13'. The original order dated July 30, 2018, is modified to this extent only.
The Tribunal acknowledged the error and modified its previous order. The assessment year in the order is now corrected to '2011-12'.
The Tribunal acknowledged the error and modified its previous order. The assessment year in the order is now corrected to '2011-12'.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) to decide the case on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This was done in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting additions related to alleged undisclosed income from seized documents, finding them based on assumption. The addition for low household expenses was also deleted, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal restored the issue of comparability of M/s CS Software Enterprises Ltd. to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication. The AO/TPO was directed to examine the functional profile, assets, and risks in detail, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding ESOP expenses had already been decided in favor of the assessee in a previous appeal for the same assessment year. Therefore, the adjudication on the validity of reopening became academic. The appeal was allowed in part based on the prior decision.
The Tribunal held that the existence of reasonable cause is a factual determination and the number of entries does not negate it. It further noted that the Bombay High Court's decision in Triumph International Finance (India) Ltd. was not limited to cross-adjustments between two parties.
The Tribunal held that the actual claim of deduction and not just the filing of an audit report or seeking an opinion determines the initial assessment year. Since the assessee had not claimed deduction in AY 2006-07 and its gross total income was Nil, AY 2007-08 was correctly considered the initial year.
The Tribunal held that the payment of Rs. 1.50 crore was incurred in connection with the transfer of property to facilitate peaceful possession, and allowed it as a deduction. It also held that the deposit in the capital gains account scheme met the requirements of Section 54, allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment for the year in question was not pending on the date of search and no incriminating material was found, the addition made under Section 153A was beyond its scope. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation.
The Tribunal held that the license fee accrued in the subsequent assessment year as per the original agreement, and the claimed amendment was not supported by credible evidence. Therefore, the addition was sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of comparables had become academic as no transfer pricing adjustment was made. While acknowledging past favorable decisions on comparables, the Tribunal dismissed the ground without delving into the merits.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on borrowed funds, which were inextricably linked to the setting up of the mega road projects and were not at the assessee's free disposal, should be treated as business income and set off against pre-operative expenditure.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT's order under Section 263, which formed the basis for the revised assessment, had been set aside by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the revised assessment order was no longer valid.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the jurisdiction to entertain new claims not made in the return of income. It further held that TDS amount should be considered as application of income for exemption under Section 11(1) of the Act, following its own previous order.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted as the service tax was not claimed as a deduction and the non-deduction of TDS was fully disclosed in the tax audit report. Mere making of a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that interest disallowance was not justified due to sufficient own funds. For expense disallowance, it directed recomputation considering only income-yielding investments.
The Tribunal held that the holding period for determining capital gains should be counted from the date of the agreement to purchase, not from the date of possession. Consequently, the capital gains were treated as long-term.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. It held that the assessee is a qualifying company, fulfilling the criteria of being an Indian company, having its place of effective management in India, owning a qualifying ship, and having the main object of operating ships. The primary objection of the lower authorities was the timing of the application, stating it was not filed within three months of incorporation. However, the Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Blue Ocean Sea Transport Ltd., held that the period prescribed under Section 115VP(2) is directory and not mandatory. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that there was no dispute regarding its status, place of effective management, ownership of the ship, and its business object. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the prescribed authority/ACIT to allow the assessee's application filed under Section 115VP for exercising the option of the tonnage scheme. The issue of ownership verification raised by the revenue was not explicitly decided but was implicitly accepted as not a bar to the scheme given the ruling on the timing of the application.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect and also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection. The addition of Rs. 1,81,000/- was upheld as the assessee failed to provide verifiable positive material to controvert the findings of the AO and CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) deleted the additional disallowance based on a prior ruling. The revenue argued for disallowance as per Rule 8D, while the assessee sought to restrict it based on earlier years' accepted disallowances.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's share in the AOPs was determined at a lower figure than what was added. The addition was restricted to the difference between the correct share and the income already assessed.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred by relying on third-party statements without providing copies or cross-examination opportunities to the assessee. The assessee had provided evidence, including lender confirmations and financial statements, which the AO failed to disprove with cogent reasons.
The Tribunal found that while the AO's rejection of books and GP estimation might have been on the higher side, the assessee failed to substantiate claims for commission and foreign travel expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal modified the additions.
The Tribunal held that the matter needed to be re-adjudicated by the Assessing Officer in light of the assessee's submissions and the Special Bench decision in Motorola Inc. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was previously decided in favour of the assessee for an earlier assessment year, where the matter was restored to the DRP for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on intangible assets and deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that Section 54, as it stood for the assessment year 2012-13, did not prohibit investment outside India for claiming the deduction. The amendment introducing the 'in India' clause was prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) could not be sustained as the funds for investments were from the assessee's own capital and not from borrowed funds of the proprietorship concern. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied their mind to the claims made by the assessee, and since the AO had dealt with the disallowable claims and allowed others after due consideration of the provided details, the revisionary powers under Section 263 were not justified.
The Tribunal found that the quantitative statements were not rejected and considered the assessee's declared gross profit rates. It deemed it appropriate to restrict the disallowance to 3% for AY 2010-11 and 2% for AY 2011-12.