Loading ITAT cases…
141 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal restored the issue of Franchisee Fee to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, citing identical facts in preceding years. It also restored the issues of air fare, travel, boarding, and lodging expenses to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the re-opening of assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer had already considered the issue during the original assessment. The Tribunal also agreed that any disallowances would increase business income, making it eligible for further deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from the sale of shrink-wrapped software are not in the nature of royalty and are not taxable in India. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case and other similar cases.
The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment for notional interest on share application money, following its own previous decisions. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to exclude assets not yielding dividend income from the average investment calculation for Section 14A disallowance.
The Tribunal considered the submissions regarding the selection/rejection of comparables. The judgment also discusses the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on the time limit for pronouncement of orders.
The Tribunal decided that the issues in the current appeal were similar to a previous year's appeal. Based on the prior decision, the appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263. The issue regarding the eligibility of deductions after transfer pricing adjustments was debatable and had been examined by the AO. Therefore, the CIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the claim made outside the return of income, appellate authorities are not precluded from entertaining such fresh claims. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's mistake was bonafide as all material facts were disclosed and the genuineness of expenditure was not doubted. Therefore, the assessee could not be accused of submitting inaccurate particulars or concealing income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following its own prior decision on identical facts for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal held that the payments for line production services are neither royalty nor fees for technical services and are not taxable in India.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds, including transfer pricing adjustments, disallowance of penalties, Section 14A disallowance, and depreciation. Some additions/disallowances were sustained, while others were vacated or modified by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the TPO's determination of the arm's length price at nil was perfunctory and ad-hoc, without following the prescribed methods under the Income Tax Act. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal agreed to accept the four identified software distributors as comparables but directed the AO/TPO to verify their segmental data and recompute the transfer pricing adjustment. The additional ground regarding the deduction of education cess was allowed for statistical purposes, with the AO directed to verify facts and pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had previously ruled that the assessee and KEPL were not associated enterprises, the foundation for the penalties was removed. Therefore, the penalties under sections 271AA and 271BA were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for the whole year under Section 80IC, stating that the deduction is eligible on an annual profit basis and not for a broken period. However, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of capital loss on the sale of R&D assets, following its own prior decision for the assessment year 2006-07.
The Tribunal held that the upward adjustment made by the TPO was unjustified. It reasoned that the substantial difference in sales volume justified offering a volume discount to the AE, especially for a slow-moving item. The initiation of penalty proceedings was deemed premature.
The Tribunal held that no notional interest adjustment was warranted as the assessee had a uniform practice of not charging interest on delayed realization of export proceeds from both AEs and non-AEs. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years and a High Court judgment.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had deleted the addition made by the AO on an estimation basis. Since the penalty was levied based on this deleted addition, the Tribunal held that the penalty order could not survive.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries regarding the share subscribers and that the payment to Mr. Amarchand Premchand Walmiki was substantiated by ledger accounts and payment vouchers.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was genuine and the interest income was correctly offered to tax in the subsequent assessment year as per the re-negotiated terms. The AO's action to assess interest not accrued was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections. The Tribunal found that the period of lockdown due to COVID-19 should be excluded when computing the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. This is supported by various High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the quantum additions contested by the revenue was below the monetary threshold limit of Rs. 50 Lacs. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable as per the low tax effect circular.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the quantum additions contested by the revenue was below the monetary threshold limit of Rs. 50 Lacs. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable as per the low tax effect circular.
The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimation basis, as in this case where the addition was restricted to 2% of bogus purchases, do not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making additions under Section 68 when the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing necessary evidence. Non-response of creditors to Section 133(6) notices alone is not sufficient ground for adverse inference against the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 30% of the bogus purchases. It relied on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that non-appearance of suppliers does not automatically invalidate purchases, especially when sales are not rejected.
The Tribunal followed its own decision for the preceding assessment year, where identical facts led to the allowance of shared service expenses. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the previous ruling.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that while the declared source of purchases was not proven, the assessee's sales were not disputed. Therefore, only the profit element, not the entire purchase amount, should be added.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash credit and transfer pricing adjustment back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering additional evidence and affording an opportunity of hearing. The ground related to Section 43B disallowance was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fees allocated over fixed assets. However, it allowed depreciation on non-compete fees treated as an intangible asset, following its own previous decisions and High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that since the original orders passed by the TDS officer under Section 201(1)/(1A) were previously held to be invalid by the Tribunal, the subsequent appeal effect orders also had no basis.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to file the appeal electronically with a condonation of delay application.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 8% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering it a reasonable profit element. Both the assessee and the AO failed to conclusively prove their case with sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the original orders passed by the TDS officer under Section 201(1)/(1A) were previously held to be invalid by the Tribunal, the subsequent appeal effect orders also had no basis.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had made observations about the Assessing Officer not considering certain submissions but did not provide specific directions. Considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had made observations about the Assessing Officer not considering certain submissions but did not provide specific directions. Considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had made observations about the Assessing Officer not considering certain submissions but did not provide specific directions. Considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had made observations about the Assessing Officer not considering certain submissions but did not provide specific directions. Considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had made observations about the Assessing Officer not considering certain submissions but did not provide specific directions. Considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had made observations about the Assessing Officer not considering certain submissions but did not provide specific directions. Considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had made observations about the Assessing Officer not considering certain submissions but did not provide specific directions. Considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had made observations about the Assessing Officer not considering certain submissions but did not provide specific directions. Considering the additions made by the AO, the Tribunal felt the assessee should be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that a 12.5% disallowance was excessive for the profit element in the business. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for acquisitions that did not materialize should be treated as revenue expenditure. Expenses for successful acquisitions were to be added to the cost of investment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's gross total income mainly consisted of income from house property, capital gains, and other sources (69%), which falls under the exception in Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. Therefore, the F&O loss was not speculative and eligible for set-off against other business income.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer only disallowed a part of the purchases on an estimated basis, it could not be concluded that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. Additionally, the appeals were not maintainable as the penalty amount was below the monetary threshold for departmental appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by showing the loan was received and repaid by account payee cheque and was reflected in the tax audit report. The Assessing Officer had not made out a cogent basis for the addition.