Loading ITAT cases…
339 orders · Page 4 of 7
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete a portion of the addition, stating that 100% disallowance of bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. Only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- related to employee stock option plan losses back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also set aside for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed in the name of a non-existent entity after amalgamation are void and suffer from a jurisdictional defect. Following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to Facebook, Ireland were for advertisement banners and did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or royalty. It was also noted that Facebook, Ireland did not have a Permanent Establishment in India, and the servers were not located in India.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The explanation provided, attributing the delay to an erstwhile consultant without naming them, did not inspire confidence.
The CIT(A) quashed the reopening because the same issue had been previously examined under Section 263 proceedings and dropped in favor of the assessee. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no merit in the reopening.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for deleting the first addition should also apply to the second addition. The Tribunal found that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was not sustainable without cogent inquiry, especially since the donor had agricultural land.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make additions based solely on a voluntary disclosure of ad-hoc income before the Settlement Commission without any incriminating material. The Tribunal also held that education cess on income tax is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. For section 56(2)(viib), the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. For section 14A, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that no disallowance was warranted under rule 8D(2)(ii) due to sufficient interest-free funds and that the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) should be computed based on average investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- related to employee stock option plan losses back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also set aside for fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was based on an incorrect appreciation of facts and that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a resident of India based on Section 6(1)(c) of the Act, irrespective of his stay outside India. Expenses borne by a non-relative were treated as taxable gifts under Section 56(2)(v).
The Tribunal upheld the addition of 12.5% of bogus purchases, following the precedent that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be disallowed. The assessee's failure to prove the genuineness of purchases was noted.
The Tribunal remanded issues concerning accrued profits, disallowed interest on bank funds, and interest on ongoing projects back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. The addition related to rent receipts was dismissed, and the disallowance of depreciation was allowed.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- related to employee stock option plan losses back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also set aside for fresh decision.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The revenue's appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the bad debts written off against provisions created prior to April 1, 2006, are eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) if other conditions are met. The Pr.CIT's revisionary order was set aside as the issue had been examined and accepted by the Assessing Officer in prior assessments.
The Tribunal held that the matter needed to be restored to the AO/TPO for verification of the assessee's claim regarding TP adjustments within the safe harbor range. It also directed the inclusion of a specific comparable company and the exclusion of another, and allowed depreciation on goodwill based on earlier precedents.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not properly examine the assessee's explanation, which had prima facie cogency given the nature of business and corresponding withdrawals. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the authorities below was based on surmise and conjecture, lacking legal sustainability. The assessee had provided sufficient details regarding turnover and cash balance, and the ad-hoc disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to lead additional evidence regarding the company's Memorandum of Association. It held that the case needs to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after considering this evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal decided that disallowance under Section 14A for book profit computation under Section 115JB should be restricted to the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee. For certain assessment years, interest income was considered tax-neutral and academic, leading to dismissal of the ground.
The Tribunal decided that disallowance under Section 14A for book profit computation under Section 115JB should be restricted to the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee. For certain assessment years, interest income was considered tax-neutral and academic, leading to dismissal of the ground.
The Tribunal decided that disallowance under Section 14A for book profit computation under Section 115JB should be restricted to the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee. For certain assessment years, interest income was considered tax-neutral and academic, leading to dismissal of the ground.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on several grounds, particularly regarding the taxation of interest on securities on a due basis and treating securities as stock-in-trade. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on these points, citing consistent past rulings and High Court confirmations.
The Tribunal held that since winding up proceedings had been initiated against the assessee, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were not maintainable in their current format. The liquidator had not appeared before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) had not conducted thorough inquiries regarding the unsecured loans and expenses. Therefore, in the interest of justice, both issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration and proper inquiry.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on several grounds, particularly regarding the taxation of interest on securities on a due basis and treating securities as stock-in-trade. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on these points, citing consistent past rulings and High Court confirmations.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that additions made under Section 153A for non-abated assessment years are unsustainable if not based on incriminating material found during the search. The appeal was also found unsustainable due to the tax effect being below the CBDT limit.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made in an unabated year if no incriminating material is found during the search. Additionally, the notices issued under Section 143(2) were found to be time-barred, vitiating the entire proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's retracted statement, which was not considered by the lower authorities, needed to be examined. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India for distribution revenue, following its own prior decisions. For advertisement revenue, the Tribunal's decision is not explicitly stated in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates a favorable outcome for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases, following the Bombay High Court's decision. The addition was reduced significantly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's retracted statement, which was not considered by the lower authorities, required fresh consideration. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the addition should be limited to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases, following the Bombay High Court's decision. The addition was reduced significantly.
The tribunal noted that the dispute had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the assessee requested the appeal be treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action in accepting the assessee's explanation regarding depreciation on software was not lacking bonafides. Merely because the AO did not record specific reasons for acceptance does not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the mistakes in the penalty order regarding the tax rate and disallowance of set-off/deduction were apparent on record. These errors could have been rectified by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the TPO's decision to benchmark the interest payment at Nil. It found that while credit periods differed for AE and non-AEs, the outstanding balances after the credit period became a separate international transaction for capital financing, where an internal CUP was available.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of depreciation on the Speed Boat. It held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the Speed Boat was used for business purposes, which is a prerequisite for claiming depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the assessee under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and a moratorium was declared. The appeals were not filed by the authorized Interim Resolution Professional.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the assessee's status as an AOP. It also found the reassessment proceedings valid and rejected the assessee's arguments regarding change of opinion and the applicability of FBT.
The Tribunal held that a protective addition made in the hands of the assessee is not sustainable if the substantive addition is also not sustainable. Therefore, the addition on account of commission was also not sustainable.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of additions related to hawala purchases, agreeing that the AO's grounds were not related to the assessee. However, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not properly applied their mind to the addition of Rs. 3,28,330/- under Section 41(1) and remitted this issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted documentary evidence and that the CIT(A) had passed an order before the extended submission deadline. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not bad in law as the AO had applied his mind. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the exempt income earned. The disallowance of processing fees was allowed in favour of the assessee based on a previous year's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the claim of CSR expenditure was a bonafide mistake due to oversight, as the assessee voluntarily revised the computation and did not suppress facts. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, it was decided that a mere claim not accepted by the revenue does not attract penalty.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is prospective and the method adopted by the assessee prior to its insertion should be followed for Section 14A disallowance. Regarding Section 115JB, the Tribunal found that the expected loss on assets retired from use was an actual write-off and should not be added back.