Loading ITAT cases…
400 orders · Page 1 of 8
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding commission paid, following prior rulings. It allowed the assessee's additional ground concerning export profits eligible for reduction under Section 115JB. Revenue's grounds on club membership and work-in-progress valuation were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessees could not claim telescoping benefit for investments made by independent family members from 'on money' received by others, as they failed to demonstrate the utilization of that specific cash for their investments. However, one assessee's case was restored for further verification.
The Tribunal noted that insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the assessee company. As per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, no proceedings can remain pending with any Court or Tribunal once such proceedings have begun. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had reasonable cause for not presenting all evidence before the CIT(A) due to personal circumstances. Therefore, the issues regarding unexplained investment and gift were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not required to refer the matter to the TPO as the case was selected for scrutiny on non-transfer pricing risk parameters and no specific circumstances warranted such a reference. The Tribunal also found that depreciation on goodwill was allowed in a prior year and could not be disallowed in a subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that the assessees could not claim telescoping benefit for investments made by independent family members from 'on money' received by others, as they failed to demonstrate the utilization of that specific cash for their investments. However, one assessee's case was restored for further verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that disallowance under Section 14A should only be made in respect of investments that have actually earned exempt income during the year. This aligns with established legal principles and a Special Bench decision.
The Tribunal held that while the journal entry adjustment contravened Section 269T, the assessee had a reasonable cause under Section 273B. This was due to the complex inter-company loan assignment and the prevailing judicial precedent at the time of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that the assessees could not claim telescoping benefit for investments made by independent family members from 'on money' received by others, as they failed to demonstrate the utilization of that specific cash for their investments. However, one assessee's case was restored for further verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessees had reasonable cause for not presenting all evidence before the CIT(A) due to personal circumstances. Therefore, the issues regarding unexplained investment and gift were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the approval from the superior authority was granted mechanically without application of mind. The satisfaction of the Commissioner was paramount, and a mere 'approved' stamp was insufficient.
The Tribunal noted that the limitation period for the AO to pass a consequential order had expired. Therefore, the PCIT's order had lost its enforceability, and adjudicating the appeal would be academic.
The Tribunal held that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts in the original assessment. The Assessing Officer was merely changing his opinion on the same set of facts, which is not permissible for reopening.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer validly assumed jurisdiction for reassessment. Regarding the purchases, while the lower authorities failed to prove the cash trail back to the assessee, the assessee also did not fully discharge its onus. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in the purchases was taxed.
The Tribunal held that the sales tax/entry tax exemption/incentive received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. This decision was based on the 'purpose test' and the understanding that the subsidy was an incentive for industrial development, not to meet the cost of capital assets.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee had discharged its initial burden of proof by providing PANs, bank statements, and return acknowledgements of the creditors, and the AO failed to rebut this evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable because winding up proceedings had been initiated against the assessee company, and the liquidator had not appeared before the Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed on this procedural ground.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, upholding the deletion of disallowances related to Section 80IB/80IC deductions and commission payments. For AY 2014-15, one issue was remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposits by providing cash book and bank statements showing withdrawals. Regarding the deemed dividend, the Tribunal found the transaction to be a commercial one related to flat purchase and cancellation, not a loan, and therefore not covered under Section 2(22)(e).
The Tribunal held that the assessees could not claim telescoping benefit for investments made by independent family members from 'on money' received by others, as they failed to demonstrate the utilization of that specific cash for their investments. However, one assessee's case was restored for further verification.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, upholding the deletion of disallowances related to Section 80IB/80IC deductions and commission payments. For AY 2014-15, one issue was remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, upholding the deletion of disallowances related to Section 80IB/80IC deductions and commission payments. For AY 2014-15, one issue was remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was impermissible as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The reassessment was based on a change of opinion and not on any new material, making the assessment order without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E was not sustainable as the amendment to Section 200A, which provided the machinery for levying such fees, was effective from June 1, 2015. Since the defaults occurred before this date and the intimation under Section 200A was issued prior to it, the levy was not permissible.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the core issue of tax rate applicability and had passed a non-reasoned order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh computation of tax with a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that R&D expenses incurred at Mahape and Sinnar units have no direct nexus with the products manufactured at the Baddi unit. Therefore, no apportionment of these R&D expenses is required for computing the deduction under Section 80IC for the Baddi unit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 25% for both depreciation and expenses related to the helicopter. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessees could not claim telescoping benefit for investments made by independent family members from 'on money' received by others, as they failed to demonstrate the utilization of that specific cash for their investments. However, one assessee's case was restored for further verification.
The Tribunal held that provisions for special discounts and sales returns were allowable as they were based on past experience and industry practice, and the liabilities were certain at the balance sheet date. The license fee payment was also considered an expenditure incurred during the year, even if part was paid in advance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on certain issues, including the estimation of profit at 3% and dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the validity of the assessment order being passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 instead of Section 144. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's ground regarding fixed assets as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that brought-forward capital losses cannot be adjusted against capital gains that are exempt from tax under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The treaty benefit should be considered first, and only remaining losses can be carried forward.
The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee's representative did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CPC had no jurisdiction to make the adjustment under section 143(1) as there were favorable High Court decisions prior to the amendment. Furthermore, the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not retrospective, and the assessment year in question predated it.
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The explanation of miscommunication with the Chartered Accountant was not considered plausible, especially for a partnership firm.
The Tribunal held that since the entire addition was based on estimation and not on specific evidence of concealment, the penalty was not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the basis for penalty was information from the Sales Tax Department without independent enquiry.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that disallowance under Section 14A should only be made in respect of investments that have actually earned exempt income during the year. This aligns with established legal principles and a Special Bench decision.
The Tribunal noted that the NCLT order extinguished all past liabilities of the assessee to government authorities that were not part of the resolution plan. Consequently, the present appeals were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the land was agricultural. Therefore, the long-term capital gain was rightly taxed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation, as the period for imposing the penalty had expired before the order was passed. Therefore, the penalty order was not sustainable in law.
The tribunal allowed the plea for working capital adjustment for both assessment years. It also directed the exclusion of two comparable companies, Infobeans Technologies Ltd. and Ingenuinity Gaming Solutions, from the list of comparables for AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal heard both the Revenue and the assessee. The specific decision on the addition of unsecured loans and the validity of reassessment proceedings is not detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates the matter is being adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153A were invalid due to the absence of a valid search warrant and Panchnama drawn in the assessee's name. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), holding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence like invoices, delivery challans, and payment proofs. The Tribunal also noted that the supplier not having a godown did not invalidate the transaction as delivery was shown from the original manufacturer.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in considering the claim for export incentives at the appellate stage. It further held that the export incentives received under various schemes were capital in nature and therefore not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in considering the claim for export incentives at the appellate stage. It further held that the export incentives received under various schemes were capital in nature and therefore not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid due to lack of proper satisfaction and that the addition was unsustainable as it relied on retracted statements and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in considering the claim for export incentives at the appellate stage. It further held that the export incentives received under various schemes were capital in nature and therefore not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction as no incriminating material with bearing on the assessee's total income was found during the search. Furthermore, the addition was based on statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid due to lack of proper satisfaction and that the addition was unsustainable as it relied on retracted statements and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid due to lack of proper satisfaction and that the addition was unsustainable as it relied on retracted statements and denied the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.