Loading ITAT cases…
5,504 tribunal orders from the Mumbai bench in 2022.
Showing 40 of 5,504 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that since the executor had withdrawn and the legal heir status was sub-judice, there was no one representing the deceased assessee. Therefore, the appeals could not be kept pending.
The Tribunal held that the incentives offered to stockists were in the nature of discounts on a principal-to-principal basis and not commission. It also held that the interest paid for delayed purchase payments was not in the nature of interest as defined under Section 2(28A) of the Act, but was linked to trading liabilities.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the executor had withdrawn and the legal heir status was sub-judice, there was no one representing the deceased assessee. Therefore, the appeals could not be kept pending.
The Tribunal held that although the share application money was received from an alleged benami concern, it was refunded back within the same financial year and no shares were allotted. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 was not proper.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO. The assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors, especially when the information was within the assessee's knowledge.
The Tribunal held that since the executor had withdrawn and the legal heir status was sub-judice, there was no one representing the deceased assessee. Therefore, the appeals could not be kept pending.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the exception in the CBDT circular, which pertains to information from external law enforcement agencies, did not apply. The information leading to the addition was received from the DGIT (Inv.), which is an internal wing of the income tax department.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating revision proceedings without conducting independent inquiries to establish the AO's order as erroneous. The AO had taken a possible view after making enquiries, and the PCIT's reliance solely on the investigation report was insufficient to justify revision.
The Tribunal decided that income from domain registration and web hosting services is not taxable as 'Royalty' under the Act or the tax treaty. It also held that sponsorship income is taxable as business income, not royalty, and that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India for such income.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received was a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt. This was based on the fact that the contract was frustrated due to the DDA's failure, leading to the loss of the source of income for the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal decided that income from domain registration and web hosting services is not taxable as 'Royalty' under the Act or the tax treaty. It also held that sponsorship income is taxable as business income, not royalty, and that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India for such income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and heard the appeal ex-parte. The core issue revolves around whether the assessee fulfilled the conditions of Section 47(xiiib) for the conversion from a company to an LLP.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the deletion of addition for purchases from M/s Foram Traders, as these were not recorded in the assessee's books. It also upheld the restriction of addition to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases from M/s Siddhi Enterprises, considering it as profit margin.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The Indiabulls Group had already approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission and offered income related to these transactions, and the AO failed to demonstrate that the impugned amount was not included in the settlement.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of capitalized expenses in some instances, while allowing depreciation on capitalized amounts in others. The appeals were decided based on prior rulings for the assessee's own case for other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that since the executor had withdrawn and the legal heir status was sub-judice, there was no one representing the deceased assessee. Therefore, the appeals could not be kept pending.
The Tribunal held that since the executor had withdrawn and the legal heir status was sub-judice, there was no one representing the deceased assessee. Therefore, the appeals could not be kept pending.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the share capital and premium received from M/s. Jaycee Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were established, and the Assessing Officer had not provided specific reasons for rejecting the same.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating revision proceedings without conducting independent inquiries to prove the AO's order was erroneous. The AO had taken a possible view after making enquiries, and the PCIT's reliance solely on the investigation report was insufficient to justify revision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds regarding the non-charging of interest on outstanding amounts from both AEs and non-AEs were allowable, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision. The Tribunal also noted that the economic conditions in the operating country of the AE made recovery doubtful, supporting the assessee's position.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating revision proceedings without conducting independent inquiries to establish the AO's order as erroneous. The AO had taken a possible view after making enquiries, and the PCIT's reliance solely on the investigation report was insufficient to justify revision.
The Tribunal held that the payment received by the assessee was not in the nature of royalty and was correctly offered to tax under Section 44B as income from the business of operating ships. The judgment of the Madras High Court relied upon by the lower authorities was distinguished.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete disallowances for commission expenses and bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the commission payments were genuine and that no purchases were made from the party in question.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the disputed expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had wrongly dismissed the appeals based on a misunderstanding of who filed the Vivad Se Vishwas application. The matter was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the payments were purchases of goods and not 'works contract' as defined under Section 194C. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision in the assessee's case for AY 2017-18, finding no change in facts or law.
The Tribunal held that information from the Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation) is an internal source and not an 'external source' as per the CBDT circular exceptions. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal, despite the information source, was hit by the low tax effect limit.
The Tribunal followed its previous decisions, holding that the receipts were not taxable in India as royalty or fees for included services. The Tribunal also noted that the tax authorities had not sufficiently examined the nature of services actually provided.
The Tribunal held that unrealized foreign exchange loss is allowable as a deduction based on mercantile accounting and mark-to-market principles. It also held that ESOP expenses are deductible under Section 37(1) as they represent an ascertained business liability incurred for employee incentivization.
The Tribunal, following its co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, held that most of the 'other incomes' were derived from the eligible industrial undertaking and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The initiation of penalty proceedings was deemed premature.