Loading ITAT cases…
493 orders · Page 4 of 10
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this course of action.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable on additions made merely on estimation, and acceptance of addition does not automatically warrant penalty. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it to be reasoned and based on judicial decisions. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as they could not present new evidence to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable on additions made merely on estimation, and acceptance of addition does not automatically warrant penalty. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. Nannusamy Mohan (HUF) v. ACIT. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the assessee to restore it if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement was not successful.
The Tribunal held that based on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and her mother-in-law's case, the three flats should be considered a single unit and treated as self-occupied. Therefore, the addition of notional rental income was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant year. Therefore, no disallowance of expenses can be made in such a scenario.
The Tribunal treated the appeals as dismissed and withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to have the appeals restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the profit element (estimated at 12.5%) of the alleged bogus purchases. This was based on the reasoning that only the profit element should be taxed when sales are not doubted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling that prior period expenses crystallizing in the current year are allowable, especially when the assessee's accounting method has been consistently followed and accepted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad se Vishwas declaration and the prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this course of action.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission of a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and a prayer to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received back from the welfare trusts were capital receipts and not liable to tax, nor includible in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB of the Act.
The Tribunal held that since the sales corresponding to the disputed purchases were not disputed, only the profit element should be taxed. The CIT(A)'s decision to add 12.5% profit, which subsumes other additions like commission, was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the High Court's direction to examine the distance of the land from the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation limits. The Tribunal noted that the distance measurement method (road vs. aerial) and the applicability of amendments were key issues to be reconsidered.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of royalty payments on trademarks was settled in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench. Similarly, issues related to Annual Information Report and short grant of TDS credit were also decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS2020 and filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The tribunal acknowledged this request.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeals as infructuous, granting liberty to revive the appeals if the declaration under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' fails.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and had filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeals and dismissed the Revenue's appeals as infructuous, granting liberty to revive the appeals if the declaration under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' fails.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed and withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition. The condition allows the assessee to seek restoration of the appeals if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable. This decision was based on a CBDT circular directing the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Madras High Court and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme declaration was not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) should be deleted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. For administrative expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO was directed to consider only investments yielding exempt income. The issue of leave encashment was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the facts and issues in this appeal are identical to a related case, Smt. Chhaya Hasmukhlal Ranawat V/s ITO (ITA No.3278/Mum/2019). The decision in that case, which was adjudicated by the same bench, would apply mutatis-mutandis to this appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for calculating disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned view.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue requested the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that interest-free loans and corporate guarantees to AEs constitute international transactions under Section 92B. While upholding the principle of arm's length adjustment, it agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction to use LIBOR for interest and a reduced rate for corporate guarantee fees. For non-genuine purchases, the Tribunal allowed purchases from one party but directed a profit element estimation for purchases from another.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and the Department had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that for Section 35(2AB) deductions, the recognition of the R&D facility by the prescribed authority is the primary condition. The date of the certificate is not as important as the fact of approval, and the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction on the entire expenditure incurred.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and received Form-3. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) had rejected the assessee's claim for LTCG exemption based on the modus operandi of penny stock manipulation. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the purchase and sale of shares, and the AO's rejection was based on general observations about such transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to restrict the disallowance of non-genuine purchases to 12.5%. This was considered fair and reasonable given that the assessee had effected corresponding sales and was in possession of the goods.
The Tribunal held that for Section 35(2AB) deductions, the recognition of the R&D facility by the prescribed authority is the primary condition. The date of the certificate is not as important as the fact of approval, and the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction on the entire expenditure incurred.
The tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome is not favorable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in allowing depreciation at 60% on computer software. The Tribunal noted the consistent treatment by the AO in earlier and later years and the lack of specific reasons for deviation in the year under appeal.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the ITAT dismissed the appeals with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if their Vivad-se-Vishwas declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme declaration is later declared bad in law.
The CIT(A) agreed that the purchases were not genuine but restricted the addition to 12.5% of the purchase value, considering the assessee had accounted for corresponding sales. The Tribunal upheld this decision.