Loading ITAT cases…
380 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal held that for computing the average value of investments under Rule 8D(2)(iii), investments that did not yield any exempt income during the year should be excluded. The matter was restored to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that there was no evidence on record to establish that the advances were made for business purposes. The provided Memorandum of Association and other documents did not contain any agreement or understanding to support the business nature of the advances.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) should be reduced from export turnover and total turnover for computing the deduction under Section 10A. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. and the Tribunal's own prior decision in the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to provide sufficient justification for disallowing 50% of director's remuneration and rent for accommodation, especially when similar expenses were allowed in previous years. It also found the disallowance of depreciation on the motor car to be unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's determination of ALP on an ad-hoc or estimation basis without following prescribed methods was not permissible. The TPO's order was contradictory, and the DRP had approved it without proper appreciation of statutory provisions. The Tribunal deleted the adjustment made by the TPO.
The Tribunal held that since no income had accrued or been received by the assessee under Section 5, no notional income could be brought to tax under Section 92. For the Section 14A disallowance, the AO was directed to consider only those investments that actually yielded exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the full TDS credit, provided the other entity has not claimed it. The revenue cannot retain tax deducted at source without credit being available to anyone. The rectification order was not passed as per procedure.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Saraswat Infotech Ltd., held that ATM machines and UPS batteries are to be treated as part of the computer system and allowed depreciation at 60%.
The Tribunal found factual discrepancies in the authorities' findings, particularly regarding the nature of the transaction (offline vs. through stock exchange) and the assessee's dealings in other shares. It noted that the share price increase could be justified by the company's financial performance.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for remodeling, painting, and making the flat habitable, as per the assessee's standard of living, forms part of the cost of purchase and is admissible under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that the ready reckoner rate for developed vacant land as on 01.04.1981 is ₹60 per sq. meter, as previously decided in the case of a co-owner. The AO was directed to adopt this rate for computing capital gains.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80IB(4), finding that the factory license date did not preclude the claim. It also upheld the restriction of disallowance under Section 14A, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not analyze the availability of interest-free funds versus interest-free advances. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the factual position regarding interest-free funds, and if true, allow the claim.
The Tribunal held that Infosys BPO Ltd. and eClerx Services Ltd. were not comparable to the assessee due to significant differences in turnover and business models. The Tribunal also declined to grant working capital adjustment.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the business nature and VAT paid on bogus purchases. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5%.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the business nature and VAT paid on bogus purchases. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5%.
The Tribunal restored the case to the AO for verification of new evidences submitted by the assessee. The AO is directed to examine and decide the issue after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. This was based on the principle of adding only the profit element embedded in such purchases and also considering a similar decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the assessee also paid VAT on these purchases. Therefore, the AO was directed to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5%.
The Tribunal held that the investment of Rs. 4 lacs was made from the assessee's bank account and was for the purchase of shares. The Tribunal deleted the addition, considering the investment as explained and not attributable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere as the issues were decided consistently in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years. The facts were also found to be similar.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side. Considering the assessee paid VAT on these bogus purchases, a further deduction was allowed, directing the AO to recompute income at a 5% profit rate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision that TDR/FSI rights generated by the plot itself, without a cost of acquisition, are not subject to capital gains tax upon sale.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not admitted the additional evidence. Therefore, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the investment of Rs. 4 lacs was made from the assessee's bank account and was for the purchase of shares. The Tribunal deleted the addition, considering the investment as explained and not attributable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that Infosys BPO Ltd. and eClerx Services Ltd. were not comparable to the assessee due to significant differences in turnover and business models. The Tribunal also declined to grant working capital adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 25% of sundry expenses was justified, following its own previous decisions. It also upheld the disallowance of 41.50% on gift and Diwali puja expenses. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for delayed PF and ESIC contributions for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the deposit dates. The interest income was partly confirmed as income from other sources, and the rest was restored to the AO for verification of business nexus. The revenue's appeal regarding foreign exchange fluctuation loss was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to AO verifying crystallized liability and actual payment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a Credit Cooperative Society and not a Co-Operative Bank, therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The CIT(A)'s decision was found to be judicious and correct.
The Tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the assessee also paid VAT on these purchases. Therefore, the AO was directed to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5%.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of the unsecured loan, finding the AO's reasons insufficient and based on surmises. For the capital gains issue, the Tribunal distinguished the assessee's case from relied-upon precedents, upholding the AO's classification of the gain as short-term.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the parties and the genuineness of the transactions. The reopening of the assessment was also found to be valid.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is applicable for computing capital gains and exemptions under Section 54EC. However, it allowed the assessee to challenge the stamp duty valuation by referring the matter to the DVO under Section 50C(2).
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal to Rs. 20,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IB(10) should be allowed on the gross total income, provided it exceeds the eligible business profit, and is not restricted by losses from non-eligible businesses. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not reporting the transaction due to a bonafide belief and the impossibility of performance as the substituted Form 3CEB was applicable only from a later date. Therefore, no penalty was leviable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's intention was to hold shares as investments, not for trading. The Tribunal noted the consistent treatment of similar income as capital gains in past assessment years and in related cases.
The Tribunal held that brought forward business losses can be set off against short-term capital gains computed under Section 50 on the sale of depreciable assets. This decision was based on High Court precedents allowing such set-offs.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the facts and arrived at a possible view by restricting the deemed dividend to the extent of funds utilized for purchasing a car. The CIT's order was found untenable as it substituted his judgment for the AO's without fulfilling the conditions of Section 263.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was held that the penalty is not leviable when the assessee has furnished all required information, even if it was not acceptable to the TPO.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid was not penal but compensatory in nature for delayed payments of contractual obligations. Therefore, it was allowable as a business expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the AO had cherry-picked instances of high profit margins and different product varieties, failing to conduct a proper analysis of transactions with the related party. The CIT(A)'s reasoned order, which found the transactions to be at market prices, was agreed with.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) could not be invoked for purchases from M/s Anil Enterprises as dealings continued post-year-end and payments were made through banking channels. Additions based on inflated prices were also deemed unsustainable without incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) could not be invoked for purchases from M/s Anil Enterprises as dealings continued post-year-end and payments were made through banking channels. Additions based on inflated prices were also deemed unsustainable without incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that the funds used for purchasing the car were the assessee's own money, received from NGEPL which had in turn received it from Eros Pictures on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not attracted as no company funds were used by the shareholder for personal benefit.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is earned by the assessee during the year, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is warranted. The CIT(A)'s decision was found to be judicious and correct.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was not a non-business transaction and that the assessee was entitled to claim interest on the bank loan and depreciation on the flat. The disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that computer projectors are integral parts of a computer system and are eligible for 60% depreciation. However, computer trolleys were not considered part of the computer system and were only eligible for 15% depreciation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.