Loading ITAT cases…
447 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision, allowed the assessee to e-file the appeal within two weeks. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits, disregarding the limitation aspect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance of Central Support Fees, following previous ITAT decisions. For dubbing costs, the Tribunal directed amortization over the license period as per earlier ITAT orders. The issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including conducting conferences, courses, and publishing journals, were for the advancement of the art, science, and technology of plastics and were purely for general public utility. Therefore, the denial of exemption under section 11 was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing that interest under sections 234A and 234B be computed up to the date of the original assessment order. Interest under section 220(2) was to be computed from the due date of the fresh assessment order.
The Tribunal allowed the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The issue regarding Section 115JB was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. The ground concerning Section 234C interest was dismissed as covered against the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the set-off of interest paid against interest received, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance based on specific directions.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal solely on the grounds of low tax effect, as it did not meet the monetary limit set by the CBDT circular for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if exceptions applied.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue's case did not fall under any exceptions to the circular.
The Tribunal held that while the non-compete fees are taxable as business income under Section 28(va) of the Act, they are only taxable in the country of residence if there is no Permanent Establishment (PE) in the other country, as per Article 7 of the DTAA. Since the assessee is a non-resident without a PE in India, the fees are not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that website development charges are revenue expenditure, citing the Supreme Court decision in Alembic Chemical Works. Application software expenditure was also deemed revenue as it was for a specific project with a one-year license.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases, aligning the gross profit rate with that of genuine purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the small delay of 31 days, stating that substantial interest of justice should prevail over technicalities. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions for the assessee's own case. It held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (share capital, reserves, and surplus) to cover the interest-free rent deposits, and there was no nexus with interest-bearing funds.
The Tribunal held that since the transactions between the assessee and its Indian subsidiary were at arm's length, as accepted in the subsidiary's case, no further profits could be attributed to the assessee's PE in India. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment letter, coupled with payment of booking price, constitutes the date of acquisition for computing Long Term Capital Gain. The orders of the lower authorities were reversed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must levy penalty only on the specific ground for which penalty proceedings were initiated. Levying penalty on a fresh ground without notice to the assessee is invalid.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect in both appeals was below the Rs. 50 Lakhs limit set by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. Following a precedent, the disallowance was restricted to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. Following a precedent, the disallowance was restricted to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. Following a precedent, the disallowance was restricted to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. Following a precedent, the disallowance was restricted to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted, as sales are impossible without purchases. The addition should be limited to the profit element, aligning the gross profit rate on disputed purchases with that of genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of purchases cannot be made when sales are not doubted, as sales are not possible without actual purchases. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a partial disallowance was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of purchases cannot be made when sales are not doubted, as sales are not possible without actual purchases. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a partial disallowance was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases, aligning the gross profit rate with that of genuine purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not shown valid reasons to reject the assessee's suo-moto disallowance. Following its own previous decisions on identical grounds, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the additional disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn or not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for appeals before the ITAT, and the tax effect in this case was below that limit.
The Tribunal held that the case law relied upon by the assessee (Sandvik Asia Ltd.) was not applicable as there was no inordinate delay in issuing the refund. Therefore, the order granting interest on interest was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, stating that the documents were seized by the Sales Tax Department and were subsequently obtained. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT circulars. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the entire interest paid on NCDs was deductible as it was incurred for the purpose of earning interest income, and a prior year's assessment order supported this. For the other expenses, the Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not consider the alternative claim under Section 37 and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that while the assessee failed to conclusively prove purchases and the AO failed to complete investigations, the CIT(A) adopted a plausible method by estimating profit on bogus purchases based on the assessee's own declared gross profit rate.
The Tribunal held that only the profit component of unverified transactions is taxable, not the entire transaction. The disallowance was reduced to 12% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P as the interest income was earned from a nationalized bank and not a co-operative society, and there was no element of mutuality in the commission income.
The Tribunal held that additions for bogus purchases should be limited to bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on such purchases in line with the GP rate on genuine purchases. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-calculate the addition accordingly.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition for bogus purchases to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on such purchases to the same level as on genuine purchases, following a jurisdictional High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 56(2)(viia) was not justified as there was no evidence of money laundering or understatement of consideration in a bona fide business transaction. The disallowance under Section 14A was also contested by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed relief on disallowance of interest related to debit balances carried over from the preceding year, and granted full relief on depreciation claims by following a Supreme Court decision. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition for bogus purchases should be limited to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on such purchases to the same rate as on other genuine purchases. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant an opportunity to the assessee before making the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any material evidence to substantiate its claim that the commission payment was made outside India to a non-resident for services rendered outside India. Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of business promotion expenses, finding them to be for business purposes. It also allowed the disallowance of interest expenses, following a coordinate bench decision and noting no evidence of tax evasion.
The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on payments made to Matrix India for Ms. Katrina Kaif's modeling services, following a previous decision. It also ruled that TDS was not deductible on reimbursement of clearing and forwarding charges to custom house agents and on the supply of batteries, treating it as a contract for sale.
The Tribunal held that the amenity charges are inextricably linked with the letting of the property and should be assessed under the head 'Income from house property'. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to assess the amenity charges under 'house property'.