Loading ITAT cases…
400 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal held that since the sales were accepted as genuine, the entire purchases could not be treated as non-genuine. Following judicial precedents, the addition was restricted to 5% of the bogus purchases, representing the profit element.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit and the case did not fall under the exception for bogus Long Term Capital Gains/Short Term Capital Loss claims.
The Tribunal held that journal entries made in the ordinary course of business between group concerns, for genuine business purposes and without involvement of unaccounted money, constitute a reasonable cause for not complying with Section 269SS. Therefore, penalties under Section 271D/271E are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that journal entries made in the ordinary course of business between group concerns, for purposes like fund raising or debt consolidation, do not attract penalties under Section 271D/271E if there is no involvement of unaccounted money and the transactions are genuine. The assessee had shown reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on the BSE Membership Card is not allowable after demutualization, as the asset ceased to exist. However, for capital gains, the cost of acquisition of shares is to be considered as the original cost of the membership card.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption to the assessee under Section 11 was not justified. It found that the salary paid to the Secretary General was not excessive and did not violate Section 13(3). The Tribunal also noted that the reopening of assessment was based on tangible material, specifically the cancellation of the assessee's registration.
The Tribunal held that profit from carbon credit sales is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA and that MTM gains on foreign exchange should be recognized only upon realization, aligning with accounting standards. Consequently, the addition of MTM income to book profits under Section 115JB was also disallowed.
Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 profit from carbon credit sales is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA and that MTM gains on foreign exchange should be recognized only upon realization, aligning with accounting standards. Consequently, the addition of MTM income to book profits under Section 115JB was also disallowed.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, held that the revenue cannot re-characterize share application money as a loan. It also allowed foreign tax credit for dividend income from a Cyprus subsidiary and directed re-computation of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the deletion of disallowances. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed, confirming the CIT(A)'s allowance of depreciation on leased assets and deletion of disallowances for prior period items.
The Tribunal held that similar issues in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year were decided in favour of the assessee. Following the precedent, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, directing the deletion of transfer pricing adjustments. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's comparables and excluded certain comparables identified by the TPO, finding the assessee's pricing to be at arm's length.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations for specific purposes are capital receipts and not taxable, even for unregistered trusts. It also decided that the classification of rental income needs further examination.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for non-appearance before the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.
Following a similar High Court order, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and accepted the assessee's claim based on the documents provided, including those showing the trust's eligibility and the amendment removing the need for renewal. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was deemed unjustified as it was based on a lack of inquiry, not inadequate inquiry.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the AO were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revision under Section 263 was not justified. The AO had conducted reassessment proceedings based on the issue of high share premium, and the assessee had provided details regarding the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the sale of the flat arising from a development agreement should be considered a long-term capital asset, not short-term. However, the exemption under Section 54 required further verification regarding the purchase of the new flat.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make an addition based solely on the ad-hoc disclosure made before the ITSC when the settlement proceedings aborted and no incriminating material was found during the search. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue of rectified TDS details and the claim for exclusion of service tax and foreign exchange fluctuations needed verification. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for appropriate adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the interest received on compensation for business damages should be treated as a revenue receipt. This is because the assessee initially treated the loss as a business loss and the nature of the receipt in the commercial world for business exigencies is revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adequately address the issue of incriminating material for the Section 153A assessment and also failed to cogently address the Assessing Officer's adverse observations regarding unsecured loans. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable. The assessee was directed to file the necessary declaration under the scheme.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable. The assessee was directed to file the necessary declaration under the scheme.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable. The assessee was directed to file the necessary declaration under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that client code modifications among family members were permissible and that the addition was made without providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut the remand report, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable. The assessee was directed to file the necessary declaration under the scheme.
The ITAT held that interest income earned by the co-operative society from its investments in nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, the issue regarding insurance commission income was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable. The assessee was directed to file the necessary declaration under the scheme.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable. The assessee was directed to file the necessary declaration under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal on a technical ground without giving an effective opportunity to rectify the mistake violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock found was directly related to the assessee's trading business and should be taxed as business income, not as income from other sources. Consequently, the partner remuneration calculated based on this business income was also allowed.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable. The assessee was directed to file the necessary declaration under the scheme.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable. The assessee was directed to file the necessary declaration under the scheme.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable. The assessee was directed to file the necessary declaration under the scheme.
The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable. The assessee was directed to file the necessary declaration under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the ALP of intra-group services cannot be determined at NIL, especially when services have contributed to the assessee's revenue growth. The Tribunal also noted that similar transactions in subsequent years were accepted by the TPO without adjustment.
The Tribunal held that allowing the donation as expenditure was contradictory to the AO's finding of denying exemption under section 11. However, the allowability of the donation is consequential to the pending appeal on the denial of exemption.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue was not justified in determining the ALP of intragroup services at Nil and directed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents regarding the determination of ALP for such services.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The PCIT issued notice and passed the order within a very short interval without sufficient evidence of service or a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 80 days, finding it not significant. It also noted that the CIT(A)'s order on the merits was cryptic and non-speaking. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea that no disallowance should be made as they were trading in shares was not sustainable. However, the disallowance should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue was not justified in determining the ALP of intragroup services at Nil and directed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents regarding the determination of ALP for such services.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue was not justified in determining the ALP of intragroup services at Nil and directed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents regarding the determination of ALP for such services.