Loading ITAT cases…
234 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. The Tribunal followed the principle of consistency and a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance cannot be added for computing book profit under Section 115JB, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The issue of depreciation was restored to the AO for re-computation, and the subsidy was treated as capital in nature.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had summarily dismissed the appeal without dealing with the legal arguments and a relevant co-ordinate bench decision. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals was in contravention of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings during moratorium. The Tribunal also noted that the defect in filing was cured by the official liquidator.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals was in contravention of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings during moratorium. The Tribunal also noted that the defect in filing was cured by the official liquidator.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals was in contravention of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings during moratorium. The Tribunal also noted that the defect in filing was cured by the official liquidator.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals was in contravention of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings during moratorium. The Tribunal also noted that the defect in filing was cured by the official liquidator.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance cannot be added for computing book profit under Section 115JB, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The issue of depreciation was restored to the AO for re-computation, and the subsidy was treated as capital in nature.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals was in contravention of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings during moratorium. The Tribunal also noted that the defect in filing was cured by the official liquidator.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeals was in contravention of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits continuation of proceedings during moratorium. The Tribunal also noted that the defect in filing was cured by the official liquidator.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when an ad-hoc estimation is made, as per settled law and various High Court decisions. Since the income was assessed on an estimated basis, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering principles of natural justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the TPO/DRP erred in determining the ALP as nil without following the prescribed methods under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act. It found that the assessee had submitted adequate details and documentation for both the SAP license and cost sharing expenses.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. The addition should be limited to the gross profit rate of genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had deployed funds in concerns where he had substantial interest for business expediency, and therefore, the interest expenses claimed were eligible for deduction. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal held that expenses for trademark registration are revenue in nature, as registration does not create a new asset but merely provides prima facie proof of ownership and saves the owner from the trouble of leading evidence. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper dissatisfaction as required by Section 14A(2) to recompute the disallowance. It also held that an ad-hoc disallowance of 1% by the CIT(A) is legally unsustainable after the amendment of Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in revising the assessment order. The Assessing Officer had made specific inquiries and verified the issues raised by the CIT(E) during the original assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 68/69 of the Income Tax Act were not sustainable. Income and assets of the offshore company could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee, especially as he acted as a trustee.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 68/69 of the Income Tax Act were not sustainable. Income and assets of the offshore company could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee, especially as he acted as a trustee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT cannot legally assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act on an order passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. The DRP, being a higher authority, its directions bind the AO, and a single CIT cannot revise an order that has already been reviewed and directed by the DRP.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 68/69 of the Income Tax Act were not sustainable. Income and assets of the offshore company could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee, especially as he acted as a trustee.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 68/69 of the Income Tax Act were not sustainable. Income and assets of the offshore company could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee, especially as he acted as a trustee.
The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee and assessment year, confirming the CIT(A)'s order regarding interest income being taxed as income from other sources. However, for business expenses, the Tribunal, referencing a prior order, held that the expenses were allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the disallowance unreasonable, especially after accepting the income as business income. It directed an estimation of 50% profit to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot unilaterally declare a registration granted by a higher authority as invalid. Since the CIT (Exemption) had previously dropped proceedings to withdraw registration after considering the amended objects, the assessment order was deemed void.
The Tribunal held that interest paid to NBFCs should be allowed if the NBFCs have offered the interest income in their tax returns and paid due taxes. For cash payments, the Tribunal found that the circumstances narrated by the assessee supported its plea for exemption under Rule 6DD of Section 40A(3).
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by both the assessee and the revenue were consequential to the decision on the claim for exemption under Section 11. Since the primary ground regarding exemption was adjudicated in favor of the assessee, the other grounds became academic.
The tribunal held that the interest rate of 15% was reasonable considering market rates and the risk associated with unsecured loans. For site expenses, the tribunal found that the expenses were incurred for the project and should be allowed, even if bills were raised in the subsequent year, as they form part of the closing stock valuation.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by both the assessee and the revenue were consequential to the decision on the claim for exemption under Section 11. Since the primary ground regarding exemption was adjudicated in favor of the assessee, the other grounds became academic.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by both the assessee and the revenue were consequential to the decision on the claim for exemption under Section 11. Since the primary ground regarding exemption was adjudicated in favor of the assessee, the other grounds became academic.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by both the assessee and the revenue were consequential to the decision on the claim for exemption under Section 11. Since the primary ground regarding exemption was adjudicated in favor of the assessee, the other grounds became academic.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by both the assessee and the revenue were consequential to the decision on the claim for exemption under Section 11. Since the primary ground regarding exemption was adjudicated in favor of the assessee, the other grounds became academic.