Loading ITAT cases…
517 orders · Page 10 of 11
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses incurred for earning fees should not be subject to markup, and the assessee had indeed charged for seafarer salary remittance services. Therefore, the adjustments made by the TPO were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the business loss, agreeing with the lower authorities that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to support the genuineness of the claimed business loss.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. The matter was remitted to the AO to quantify the addition based on the ratio of a High Court decision concerning grey market purchases.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's transfer pricing adjustment regarding the markup on raw materials was unsustainable as no prescribed method was followed. The disallowance of gratuity was allowed, and the disallowance for bogus purchases was restricted to 12.5% of unproved purchases.
The Tribunal held that adjustments for disallowance of employees' contributions to PF and ESIC are not permissible under Section 143(1) proceedings. The tax audit report's indication of payment beyond the due date does not automatically constitute a disallowance, especially when payments are made before the due date for filing the income tax return.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not doubted. The matter was remitted to the AO to quantify the addition based on the ratio of a High Court decision concerning grey market purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain a 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that while 100% disallowance is not permissible when sales are not doubted, a partial disallowance is justified, especially when purchases are made from the grey market.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) impacts the availability of exemption under Section 11, not the registration itself. Cancellation of registration with retrospective effect was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer subsequently passed a fresh order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 263, assessing the total income at Nil without any disallowance. Therefore, the appeal challenging the Section 263 order was rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening of the assessment was based on a wrong assumption of facts, as the agreement clearly stipulated that only revenue was to be shared, not expenses. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain a 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases, acknowledging that sales were not doubted. This approach was considered to meet the ends of justice given the grey market purchases.
The Tribunal held that the aggregation of closely linked transactions is permissible under Transfer Pricing mechanisms, including the renewal of fixed deposits. It also found that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary dissatisfaction to invoke Section 14A r.w.r. 8D.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on an estimated income or ad-hoc disallowance. Such disallowances do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior year. The Tribunal found no material evidence to connect the assessee to the foreign accounts or prove the income was sourced from India.
The Tribunal held that the case was selected for limited scrutiny, and the AO had addressed the specific query. The PCIT's action to convert it to complete scrutiny without proper approval was not in line with CBDT instructions. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was considered invalid.
The Tribunal held that leave encashment for non-retiring employees does not fall under Section 43B(f) as it's not payable during the year. Contributions to local organizations and rural development activities were also allowed based on previous consistent rulings. Deductions under Section 80IA for rail systems and head office expenses were also upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue representative agreed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that leave encashment for non-retiring employees does not fall under Section 43B(f) as it's not payable during the year. Contributions to local organizations and rural development activities were also allowed based on previous consistent rulings. Deductions under Section 80IA for rail systems and head office expenses were also upheld.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The assessee sought to withdraw its appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The assessee sought to withdraw its appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The assessee sought to withdraw its appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that once reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are held invalid by a coordinate bench, the consequential penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalty was justified.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was set aside, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty was set aside.
The tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against a corporate debtor during the pendency of insolvency proceedings as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The assessee sought to withdraw its appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The assessee sought to withdraw its appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. It was noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously held the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act as invalid.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to have the appeal restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.
The tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against a corporate debtor during the pendency of insolvency proceedings as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was beyond the scope of adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) as the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent. The amendment by Finance Act 2021 was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not decided the rectification application and that the application was not time-barred. The CIT(A)'s decision was found to be unjustified.
The tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against a corporate debtor during the pendency of insolvency proceedings as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal considered the appeal challenging the Section 263 order to be academic. Since the Assessing Officer's subsequent order resolved the issue in favor of the assessee, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The assessee sought to withdraw its appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals.
The tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against a corporate debtor during the pendency of insolvency proceedings as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's request for adjournment and the supporting documents. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The tribunal held that no proceedings can continue against a corporate debtor during the pendency of insolvency proceedings as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that income from the Amenities Agreement should be taxed under 'Income from Other Sources', consistent with previous Tribunal rulings. It also ruled that municipal taxes paid in relation to the property cannot be deducted against 'Income from Other Sources'.
The Tribunal held that income from the Amenities Agreement should be taxed under 'Income from Other Sources', consistent with previous Tribunal rulings. It also ruled that municipal taxes paid in relation to the property cannot be deducted against 'Income from Other Sources'.
The Tribunal held that the CPC lacked jurisdiction for such a disallowance under section 143(1), especially when High Court and Supreme Court decisions favored the assessee. Furthermore, the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was not retrospective, and the assessment year in question predated it.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain a 12.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. It reasoned that while 100% disallowance is not permissible when sales are not doubted, purchases from the grey market warrant a disallowance to account for tax savings at the expense of the exchequer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished confirmation letters and bank pass books for the loan creditors, and the Assessing Officer failed to make further inquiries. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's submissions regarding the exchange fluctuation loss, noting the use of a wrong conversion rate by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation only on the cost of construction of the leased units, not on the proportionate land cost. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow partial depreciation was upheld for AY 2010-11 and directed to be followed for AY 2011-12.
The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. However, considering purchases were made from the grey market, a 12.5% disallowance is deemed appropriate to serve the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that administrative expenses are allowable for maintaining the office even without current business activity, and restored the issue to the AO for verification. The refund of sewage tax, previously claimed as a business expense, should be treated as business income. Dividend income, however, cannot be considered business income and was rightly assessed as income from other sources.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities rejected the assessee's explanation without providing cogent reasons. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that since a co-ordinate bench had previously declared the reassessment proceedings under section 147 as invalid, the penalty proceedings could not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on the third-party documents was not justified without cross-examination, and the loose papers found at the assessee's office were 'dumb documents' as they only showed notional interest calculations without evidence of actual transactions.
The Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee by the Supreme Court decisions in Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. and The Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. These judgments interpret Section 80P liberally and in favor of cooperative societies.