Loading ITAT cases…
610 orders · Page 3 of 13
The Tribunal held that interest paid on late payment of TDS is compensatory in nature and allowable as a deduction. It also held that the ad-hoc disallowance of project expenditure was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient details and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration should relate back to the date of the show cause notice or the date the assessee acquiesced to it, not the date of the cancellation order. The inordinate delay by revenue authorities should not disadvantage the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration could relate back to the date of the show cause notice or the conclusion of the hearing, not just the date of the cancellation order. It also noted that registration, being a benefit, could not be forced upon an unwilling assessee, and the delay by revenue authorities should not disadvantage the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration should relate back to the date of the show cause notice or the date of acquiescence to it, not the date of the cancellation order. The inordinate delay by revenue authorities should not disadvantage the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration should relate back to the date of the show-cause notice or the conclusion of the hearing, not the date of the cancellation order. The delay by revenue authorities should not disadvantage the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the primary Section 263 order was quashed, any subsequent proceedings giving effect to it would be without basis. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in treating the assessment order as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration should relate back to the date of the show-cause notice or the conclusion of the hearing, not the date of the PCIT's order. The inordinate delay by revenue authorities should not disadvantage the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration should relate back to the date of the show-cause notice or the date of acquiescence by the assessee, not the date of the cancellation order. The inordinate delay by revenue authorities should not disadvantage the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, there was no necessity to keep the appeal alive. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration if the scheme application was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that MAT credit of an amalgamating company can be claimed by the amalgamated company, following a coordinate bench decision. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to recompute interest under sections 234D and 244A, excluding interest paid on refunds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence (Form 15G/15H) as the assessee was genuinely prevented from filing them before the AO. The issue was remanded to the AO for verification of these forms and a fresh decision on the disallowance.
The assessee desired to settle the litigation under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had filed the necessary declarations. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the disallowances as the assessee had either complied with TDS provisions, proved non-deductibility, or provided satisfactory explanations accepted by the AO in remand reports. The addition on account of differential net profit was also deleted as the assessee's audited accounts showed a higher profit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed made the claim before the Assessing Officer and that the CIT(A)'s finding to the contrary was incorrect. Following the Supreme Court's decision in TRF Ltd., the Tribunal stated that it is sufficient for the debt to be written off in the assessee's accounts as irrecoverable, without needing to prove it has actually become irrecoverable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending as the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,80,00,000/-. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue involving share capital and premium received from the same party, OMIL, in Assessment Year 2011-12 had been decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A) and subsequently by the Tribunal itself in assessee's own case (ITA No. 2671/Mum/2016 dated 19.02.2019). In that prior decision, the Tribunal had held that for the purpose of Section 68, the transaction should be genuine, the identity of the party established, and their creditworthiness proved. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with RBI guidelines, filed FIRE with RBI, and obtained a unique identification number. The previous Tribunal order also noted that the reference to the CBDT Foreign Tax Division had not brought out any adverse remarks on the bonafides of OMIL. Therefore, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on this issue. The Tribunal also noted that grounds IV and V raised by the revenue were general in nature and did not require specific adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessment framed under section 143(3) r.w.s 263 was invalid because the section 263 order itself had been quashed by a previous ITAT decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received a certificate under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not proving the creditworthiness of the creditors due to ongoing legal disputes with the assessee's sister concerns. The ledger extracts, showing transactions routed through banking channels and interest payments, were considered sufficient evidence of genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit as the income from the sale of property was considered for taxation. The rejection of the TDS credit claim was set aside, and the AO was directed to grant the credit after verification.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on borrowed funds used for acquiring shares, which were subsequently sold at a short-term capital gain, forms part of the cost of acquisition. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance without proper factual analysis regarding the availability of interest-free funds. Following a precedent in the assessee's own case, the issue was remanded to the AO for a fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and that receipts from TCL were not to be treated as royalty. It also ruled that surcharge and education cess should not be levied over and above the tax rate prescribed by the India-UK tax treaty.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding deduction for Education Cess and restored it to the Assessing Officer for consideration. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It held that the loan was not taxable as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee as the assessee was not a shareholder of the lending company. Regarding the share premium, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to satisfy Section 68, and the amended provisions regarding justification of premium were not applicable for the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unutilized CENVAT credit under Section 145A is to be deleted, as the accounting method adopted by the assessee leads to the same result as the inclusive method. The penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the services rendered by the AE and the benefits derived. It also addressed the issue of 'cess' not being disallowable under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to its omission from the legislative text. The additional ground regarding 'cess' was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the annual lettable value (ALV) of flats held as stock-in-trade by a builder and developer cannot be taxed under the head 'house property'. The decision followed the Gujarat High Court's view and ITAT precedents, distinguishing it from cases where property is held for investment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, primarily promoting sports, were charitable in nature. It followed its own previous order for an earlier assessment year, finding no reason to deviate.
The Tribunal followed its previous orders for identical facts and dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding depreciation and mark-to-market losses. For performance guarantees, the Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to re-compute the arm's length price at 0.20%.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and did not fall under the exceptions for appeals based on external agency information for penalty proceedings. The penalty proceedings are distinct from quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the ITAT. The Revenue's counsel did not controvert this fact.
The Tribunal held that unsold flats, being stock-in-trade, cannot be taxed under 'Income from House Property'. Income arising from their sale is assessable as business income.
The Tribunal held that the insertion of Clause (c) in Section 200A, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective from June 1, 2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found the assessee's mistake to be genuine and not intentional. It held that tax should be levied only on the actually generated income, not on an over-declared amount due to oversight.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on stock losses, considering the nature of the assessee's retail business. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, noting the absence of exempt income. However, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes regarding depreciation on weighing scales.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
The Tribunal held that no proceedings can be continued against a corporate debtor during the insolvency resolution process. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal held that interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii) cannot be disallowed if interest-free funds exceed investments. For administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income, but not less than the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when additions are made based on an ad-hoc estimation of Gross Profit on alleged bogus purchases, as there is no conclusive proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when additions are made based on an ad-hoc estimation of Gross Profit on alleged bogus purchases, as there is no conclusive proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the issue of tax withholding on software payments has been resolved by the Supreme Court in favor of the assessee. Therefore, no tax was deductible at source on these payments.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A), stating that penalty cannot be levied on an estimated profit element when sales are not doubted and documentary evidence for purchases was produced. The Tribunal found it doubtful if the purchases were indeed bogus.
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, relying on an ITAT decision that disallowance of purchases on an ad-hoc basis does not amount to willful furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made if there is no exempt income earned. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.