Loading ITAT cases…
329 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals before the ITAT. The Revenue's counsel agreed that the tax effect was below the limit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence for all three share subscribers. The findings of the CIT(A) were confirmed, and no addition was warranted under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Revenue were covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. These decisions had ruled in favour of the assessee, finding no double taxation or improper estimation of profit.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the assessee can seek restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69B was unjustified as the discrepancy related to the opening balance of partners' capital, which is a liability and not an investment. Furthermore, the AO admitted that the discrepancy pertained to an earlier year, and no unexplained investment was found in the current year. The Tribunal also noted that the reconciliation statement submitted by the assessee was ignored by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the receipt of money, even if not issued as share capital due to FEMA issues and treated as a gift, cannot be taxed as income in the hands of the assessee. The title of a document is not determinative of its true character.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that similar claims were allowed in preceding and succeeding assessment years, and the Assessing Officer had also allowed the full claim in a later year.
The Tribunal held that the interest-free debt funding to the SPV, for purposes of acquisition driven by commercial exigencies, could not be benchmarked under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. Therefore, the ALP adjustment for notional interest was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and received confirmation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal and cross objections, stating it would not have precedence value for other assessment years. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without proper service of notice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and taken a possible view on the issues. The PCIT's invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was found to be invalid as the conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue were not cumulatively satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Furthermore, if the net interest earned by the assessee is positive, Rule 8D(2)(ii) cannot be applied.
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 held that the payment for software purchase was not royalty, as the assessee was a reseller, not acquiring a copyright. For employee expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the actual bifurcation from maintained books of account.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing PAN, addresses, balance sheets, bank statements, and ROC filings for the share applicants. The AO's inquiry was deemed not genuine due to late issuance of notices and lack of independent verification.
The Tribunal held that there is no provision in the Act requiring an assessee to commence activities before seeking registration under Section 12AA. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) had not considered all the information provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the clause in the agreement did not constitute a third-party guarantee and even if it did, its arm's length price could not be ascertained under the CUP method. Therefore, the ALP adjustment was deleted.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available to meet interest-free investments, it is presumed that such investments were made from these own funds, even if interest-bearing loans were also raised. The disallowance of interest expenditure was therefore set aside.
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 prayer.
The Tribunal noted that once a matter is resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the inordinate delay did not constitute a 'reasonable cause' and indicated negligence and a casual approach. Therefore, the delay could not be condoned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving the authenticity of purchase transactions. However, following precedent, the addition was restricted to 2% of the unproved purchases.
The Tribunal acknowledged 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 held that appellate authorities have the power to admit additional claims, unlike the AO who is restricted to claims in the return or revised return. Therefore, the revised computation claiming indexation was admitted.
The Tribunal held that lease rental payments and water proofing charges are capital in nature and should be included in the cost of acquisition. However, vacant land tax and property tax are not capital in nature. The Tribunal also ruled that indexation benefit should be allowed from the date the assessee acquired rights in the property by making payment, not from the date of registration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no material to controvert the findings of the lower authorities. The assessee's consistent non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.
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 prayer.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding Section 14A disallowance. Following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. State Bank of Patiala, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal followed the Madras High Court's decision and disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee liberty to restore it if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution is not favorable.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect of the disputed additions was below the threshold limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, a 100% disallowance was unsustainable as the sales turnover was accepted. The profit element embedded in such transactions can be brought to tax. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to 25% was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the additions at 15% of the alleged bogus purchases, deleting the balance.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, finding that the AO had valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment. However, it agreed with the CIT(A) that the addition for bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, as the goods were likely procured from the open market.
The assessee's Authorized Representative informed the Tribunal that the appeals were not being pressed and sought to withdraw them. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal admitted the arbitration award, which was pronounced after the CIT(A)'s order and held that the assessee was not entitled to the interest. The issue was restored to the AO for re-examination in light of the award.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, as the defect of non-payment of tax was cured. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance made by the AO was not justified as it exceeded the actual indirect expenses incurred by the assessee. The assessee had already made a proportionate disallowance. Therefore, the impugned disallowance was deleted.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration was not accepted.
The Tribunal found that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to ensure a consistent view, as the appeal for the previous year was still pending. The assessee will be granted an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that statutory dues paid during the year, even if pertaining to earlier years, are allowable under Section 43B. It also ruled that business expenses are allowable if incurred for business purposes, irrespective of revenue generation, and deleted the addition under Section 69 as there were no unexplained investments.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding it to be in accordance with settled legal position. The directions to examine investments yielding exempt income and exclude disallowance from Book Profits were deemed sufficient.
The Tribunal held that an assessment under section 153A in a non-abated case cannot be made without reference to seized material. The CIT(A) was correct in quashing the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by misinterpreting a jurisdictional High Court decision and failing to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard. The 100% disallowance of purchases was made without doubting the corresponding sales.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a speaking order on merits and without properly considering the delay. The tribunal condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that a reasonable period of 90 days should be allowed for realization of trade receivables from an Associate Enterprise. It also ruled that depreciation on goodwill acquired through a business transfer agreement is allowable. Furthermore, revenue from software maintenance contracts should be recognized over the period of service, not upon contract entry.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration if the settlement fails.