Loading ITAT cases…
329 orders · Page 3 of 7
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The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.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.
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 held that filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against a jurisdictional High Court decision does not diminish its precedential value. The Tribunal upheld the DRP's order, allowing the entire advertisement and sales promotion expenditure.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 held that the third proviso to Section 50C(1), which allows a tolerance limit for variations between sale consideration and stamp duty value, is curative in nature and operates retrospectively. Therefore, the variation of 5.8% is within the tolerance band.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a statement from the builder, which was contradicted by the assessee's statement on oath and the builder's own statement. Furthermore, similar estimated additions were deleted by the Tribunal in the builder's case.
The Tribunal found that the addition at 12.5% was on the higher side and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 8% on alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declarations under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, which were accepted by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases, disallowing the entire amount was incorrect. The profit element embedded in such transactions is taxable, and the CIT(A)'s estimation of 20% profit was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals, does not apply to penalty proceedings even if the quantum proceedings fall under an exception. Penalty and quantum assessment are distinct.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the grounds raised by the assessee, especially when ITAT had previously decided similar issues in the assessee's favor. The issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It ruled that unsold flats held as stock-in-trade are not taxable as income from house property, and the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the grounds raised by the assessee, especially when ITAT had previously decided similar issues in the assessee's favor. The issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that when sales turnover is accepted, only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of suspicious dealers and purchases. Considering the facts, the suppressed profit margin on bogus purchases was estimated at 5%.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's promoter director, instrumental in obtaining the share capital, had passed away, making it difficult to gather further information. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital transactions.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as withdrawn and the assessee's cross-objection as infructuous. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal and cross-objection if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement was not resolved.
The Tribunal held that the sub-lease income of FEPL was assessed in its hands as income from other sources. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies Pvt Ltd, the Tribunal ruled that the rent received by the assessee from its tenant is assessable, irrespective of the higher rent the tenant receives from sub-leasing, unless the assessee's agreement itself is sham.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere with the deletion of additions related to purchases from Universal Trading Co. as the Revenue failed to provide counter-evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the application was not accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary threshold specified by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the issues.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Section 14A to the Assessing Officer to examine the availability of own funds for investment. Regarding the interest disallowance, the Tribunal noted that shares were allotted on the same date as the loan conversion, implying interest was paid for a minimal period.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments with another co-operative society (including a co-operative bank) is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), even after the insertion of Section 80P(4). The Tribunal preferred the view favoring the assessee when conflicting non-jurisdictional High Court decisions were presented.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that only the profit element embedded in unproved purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on bogus purchases to 12.5% by following the Gujarat High Court's decision. The Tribunal also found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision on interest disallowance, as evidence was considered at the appellate stage.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that only the profit element should be taxed, not the entire purchase value, as sales were not disputed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as there was no escapement of income, and the addition made under Section 68 was also deleted on merits. The Tribunal noted that the income was already offered to tax and accepted in the original assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. As there were no exceptions applicable, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 10AA deduction should be allowed on a standalone basis for the eligible undertaking's profits, without setting off losses from non-eligible units. It also held that commission paid to directors should not be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) if tax is deducted in the year of payment. The issue of apportioning common expenses was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals and that no exceptions applied. Consequently, the appeals were treated as deemed withdrawn.
The tribunal held that liquidated damages for breach of contract and interest on delayed VAT payment are allowable deductions. The issue of bad debts and provision for warranties were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs as per the CBDT circular and that no exceptions applied. Consequently, the appeals were treated as deemed withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that there was no effective change in the management and voting rights of the assessee company before and after the merger. The ultimate holding company continued to control the business, making the Revenue's reliance on a distinguishable case inapplicable.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Both parties agreed that no exceptions applied.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per the CBDT circular. Both parties agreed that no exceptions applied to this circular.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Since no exceptions applied, the appeal was treated as deemed withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Both parties agreed that no exceptions applied to this circular.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular and that no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.
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 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, following a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Tribunal noted that the circular is binding on revenue authorities.
The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. For administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO was directed to consider only dividend-yielding investments. The disallowance under Section 14A for book profits was restricted to the assessee's voluntary disallowance. The weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) was allowed in full.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition of shares on conversion from FCCBs/GDRs should be determined as per clauses 7(3) and 7(4) of the 1993 scheme, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The AO was directed to compute capital gain accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the right to collect annuity as an intangible asset, following established precedents. It also held that the provision for periodic maintenance, estimated on a scientific basis, is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not conclusively prove the genuineness of purchases from tainted suppliers, the goods were consumed in projects. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in the purchases should be brought to tax.