Loading ITAT cases…
380 orders · Page 5 of 8
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the mandatory satisfaction required under Section 14A(2) of the Act before invoking Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the arm's length price of Head Office expenses was academic as no deduction was claimed, and thus dismissed the ground as infructuous. Regarding the interest under Section 234C, the Tribunal found the delay was not attributable to the assessee and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under section 14A is permissible only if exempt income has been earned. Since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that merely because a claim for deduction was found to be untenable, it does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found that the claim was made on a bonafide consideration, and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the market price and face value of equity shares cannot be treated as a deemed loan, and deleted the addition on account of notional interest. Regarding investment advisory services, the Tribunal excluded certain comparables due to peculiar economic circumstances and restored the issue of another comparable to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to retiring partners and legal heirs of deceased partners, as per the partnership deed, were a diversion of income by overriding title and did not form part of the assessee firm's income. The Tribunal relied on previous High Court decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that once the quantum addition is deleted, the penalty levied on such addition does not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was justified.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred on salary, wages, materials, and technical know-how for R&D activities were allowable deductions. It also ruled that capital expenditure on scientific research related to the business is eligible for deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) even without DSIR approval.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C is applicable only to the transfer of 'land or building or both' and not to the transfer of 'development rights' in the land. Therefore, the AO wrongly applied Section 50C.
The Tribunal rectified its earlier order by incorporating the correct citation of the Dharamshibhai Sonani case and substituting 'on the date of registration' with 'on the date of agreement'. The issue of capital gains under Section 50C was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal agreed that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in such purchases, considering the correlation with sales and industry norms.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible. The addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on bogus purchases to the same level as genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that mobile phones and tablets, when used as part of an information system for data entry, storage, processing, and transmission, are integral to the computer system and eligible for 60% depreciation. The opening Written Down Value (WDV) of the block of assets was also directed not to be disturbed.
The Tribunal held that while sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases would be incorrect. However, a 12.5% disallowance was deemed just, but it should be reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee on these transactions to avoid double jeopardy.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that ESOP discount is an employee cost deductible during the vesting period. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its own previous orders.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to include more comparable companies in the transfer pricing analysis for AY 2005-06 but disagreed with including a company from the assessee's original study. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding notional interest on export receivables.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the factual matrix of the let-out portion and its proportion to the total constructed area. The AO is directed to compute the disallowance of depreciation based on the ratio of a previous ITAT decision for AY 2012-13, applying the facts of the current assessment year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient and reasonable grounds. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, which was non-speaking and passed without providing an opportunity of being heard, and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid as it was done within four years and no scrutiny assessment was originally framed. The F&O loss was considered fictitious due to manipulative client code modification, and the addition of this loss and a 1% commission was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing or producing articles or things, as previously decided in its own case. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim additional depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing or producing articles or things, as previously decided in its own case. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim additional depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the commission payment was genuine and allowable. The assessee had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with PPBIL for services, and the direct purchase of raw materials resulted in significant cost savings for the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the AO for fresh examination. This was because the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal cryptically without allowing sufficient time for the AO to conduct detailed inquiries into the creditworthiness of lenders and genuineness of transactions, despite the AO requesting more time.
The Tribunal held that the commission payment was genuine and allowable. The assessee had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with PPBIL for services, and the direct purchase of raw materials resulted in significant cost savings for the assessee.
The Tribunal deleted ad-hoc disallowances of expenses, stating they were based on surmise and similar disallowances were previously deleted in the assessee's own case. For transfer pricing, it held that interest-free advances for film acquisition were not subject to adjustment as per High Court precedent. However, unallotted share capital advances were held exigible to arm's length price adjustment.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was indeed below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. In view of the application made by the assessee's representative, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide confirmations for the unverified purchases even before the Tribunal. The Revenue also did not demonstrate steps taken to verify the purchases. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to 25% was deemed reasonable.
The tribunal held that appeals should be decided on merits and not dismissed on technical grounds, especially when it was the first year of mandatory e-filing and the assessee faced technical issues. Justice should not be sacrificed for hypertechnicalities.
The tribunal deleted the addition on account of low gross profit ratio as the books of account were not rejected and the profit rate was reasonable. The addition under section 2(22)(e) was also deleted as the transactions were found to be commercial in nature. The disallowance under section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 10%. It noted that the assessee had provided supporting documents like invoices, bank statements, and stock details, and that the GP ratio was consistent. For some creditors, the assessee discharged the onus by showing payments and corresponding sales.
The tribunal deleted the addition on account of low gross profit ratio as the books of account were not rejected and the profit rate was reasonable. The addition under section 2(22)(e) was also deleted as the transactions were found to be commercial in nature. The disallowance under section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including third-party confirmations, the father's return, and an affidavit. The matter was set aside and restored to the AO for a fresh decision after considering this evidence.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified. The addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a business connection in India under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, nor did it have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as per the India-Germany tax treaty. Consequently, the income earned from reinsurance premiums was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee provided quantitative details and stock movement records, and that sales from these purchases were accepted. As a concession, the AO agreed to a reasonable estimate of profit on these purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's adjustments scaling down the deduction under Section 10AA were not legally tenable as the conditions for invoking Section 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) were not met. However, it allowed partial reallocation of expenses.
The Tribunal held that the aggregation approach for engineering services was not appropriate due to differing profit margins across divisions. It also directed the exclusion of certain comparables for the IT segment due to functional dissimilarities and the inclusion of others based on turnover filters.
The Tribunal held that provision for warranty expenses, ISOPAR expenditure, and late delivery charges are allowable revenue expenses. It also found that the disallowance of unpaid service tax under Section 43B was not applicable as it was not claimed as a deduction.
The Tribunal agreed that the addition should be restricted to the profit element of the bogus purchases. However, it remanded the matter to the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding the profit rates and make consequential additions if the genuine purchase GP rate exceeded 6.5%.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding the issues on merit. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. However, considering purchases from the grey market, the 12.5% disallowance was deemed appropriate but should be reduced by the gross profit already declared by the assessee to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should only consider investments yielding tax-free income, and adjusted book profits accordingly. It also allowed the deduction for unrealized rent based on statutory provisions.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is not permissible. Therefore, the grievance of the Revenue was found to be without merit.
The Tribunal allowed the carry forward of losses, noting that the CIT(A) had previously deleted the AO's rejection of books for AY 2012-13, and the revenue had not appealed that decision. Consequently, the basis for denying loss carry forward was removed.
The Tribunal held that since the sales were not doubted, a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases would be incorrect. However, acknowledging purchases from the grey market, the disallowance was modified to be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they did not wish to contest the case further and wanted to end the protracted litigation. The DR had no objection.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reallocation of expenses was not justified and lacked supporting material. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of acquisition for a significant portion of the gold and all the diamond jewellery. A valuation report alone was insufficient to prove explained sources.