Loading ITAT cases…
310 orders · Page 3 of 7
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not oppose the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the issue was squarely covered by the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court's decision in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that unabsorbed depreciation, as per amended Section 32(2), could be carried forward indefinitely.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee, including issues related to money market operations, security trading loss, depreciation, and interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The matter of interest was restored to the AO for recomputation.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The revenue representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeals are required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The revenue did not oppose the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the non-supply of reasons recorded under Section 148(2). The Tribunal also allowed the deduction of interest expenses, following previous decisions, but dismissed the claim for capitalization of interest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing loan confirmations, ITR acknowledgements, bank statements, and affidavits. The AO failed to discharge his onus to prove the transactions were non-genuine.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal. The Tribunal held that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal found it appropriate to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee has the right to choose whether to be assessed under the Income Tax Act or the DTAA, and the Act's provisions are more beneficial for carrying forward losses. Therefore, the denial of carry forward was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal must be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the assessee's prayer.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. As the appeal was no longer required, it was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest income from fixed deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, interest from savings accounts with State Bank of India is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as per Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued in the name of a non-existent entity and therefore the CIT(A) was correct in quashing it. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it fit to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal must be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that interest income from fixed deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, interest from savings accounts with State Bank of India is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as per Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the revenue did not oppose the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal request.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The claim made through a revised computation of income was also accepted as the details were available on record.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. As the Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 2,31,02,343/-. It was held that the conditions under Section 36(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act were not satisfied as the debts were not taken into account in computing the income of the assessee in any prior year, nor did they represent money lent in the ordinary course of business.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to restrict transfer pricing adjustments to international transactions and allow the benefit of the tolerance range. The market research expenses were held to be revenue expenditure, following earlier decisions.
The Tribunal noted that the AO is generally bound by the return filed and cannot entertain claims not made therein without a revised return. However, the CIT(A) did not sufficiently examine the substance of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments in a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This is because a co-operative bank is considered a type of co-operative society, and Section 80P(4) does not negate this specific deduction.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. This was based on the principle that only the profit embedded in the transaction should be added, and the CIT(A)'s approach was found to be judicious and correct.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that strategic investments are not to be excluded from disallowance under Section 14A. However, disallowance is not permissible if interest-free funds exceed investments, and only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. Disallowance under Section 14A cannot be imported for computing book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and had requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this course of action.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received acceptance from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the broker, M/s Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd., was debarred from trading only from April 23, 2009. Therefore, transactions during the relevant assessment year (AY 2008-09) were not affected. The assessee had also substantiated the genuineness of the F&O transactions with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A) with evidence, considering principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that while the journal entries might contravene sections 269SS and 269T, the assessee had a reasonable cause under section 273B. The transactions were genuine business exigencies, and the amounts involved were small and represented assignment of receivables/payables.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that while the purchases might not be entirely genuine from the stated parties, the corresponding sales were not doubted, and only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that since the liability was still reflected in the books of accounts and had not been written back by the assessee, it could not be treated as cessation of liability. Therefore, the addition under Section 41(1) was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received acceptance from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that estimating the addition at 4% was too high given the profit margins in diamond trading. It reduced the addition to 2% of the total bogus purchases, considering the profit margin to be between 1% to 2%.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and the Designated Authority issued Form-3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.