Loading ITAT cases…
517 orders · Page 3 of 11
The Tribunal held that the OCDs were quasi-equity in nature and not simple debt. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found that the true reward was the opportunity to own capital on favorable terms, not just interest.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) regarding a 5% difference being ignored is curative and beneficial, thus retrospective. Since the difference was less than 5%, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that OCDs with an option for conversion into equity are in the nature of quasi-capital and not simple debt. Therefore, the imputation of interest at a benchmarked rate was inappropriate.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was prevented from accessing their portal due to the blocked PAN and had not been represented before the CIT(A). In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and had failed to consider the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the OCDs were quasi-equity in nature and not simple debt. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found that the true reward was the opportunity to own capital on favorable terms, not just interest.
The Tribunal held that the yield spread approach adopted by the assessee for benchmarking the guarantee commission was valid. The rejection of this method by the authorities below was not legally sustainable. The TPO's reliance on bank guarantee quotes was also found to be inappropriate.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for not filing submissions before the CIT(A) to be justified. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reasons for not filing submissions before the CIT(A) and granted an opportunity to present the case. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) did not provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as service of notice was not proven. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof by submitting sufficient documentary evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. Consequently, the addition of the unsecured loan and the disallowance of interest were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., which clarified that loans to nominal members, as defined by state cooperative laws, are eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, to ensure a fair adjudication and avoid further litigation, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding disallowance of delayed employee contributions to PF/ESI, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, the assessee's claim for deduction would be allowable if payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal recalled its previous order as the appeal could not be dismissed as withdrawn under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme due to the assessee's failure to complete the settlement process. The appeal was restored for hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's income from leasing the property and providing services should be considered as business income. Consequently, depreciation and finance costs are eligible for deduction under the head 'income from business'.
The Tribunal admitted the appeals, noting a violation of natural justice due to the ex-parte order. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT confirmed the deletion of disallowance on club fees, holding it as business expenditure. It also confirmed the deletion of addition on account of dividend income, finding it related to earlier investments from own funds. The assessee's appeal on setting off unabsorbed depreciation was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that income from the sale of shrink-wrapped software is not royalty income taxable in India. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own case for multiple earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had properly inquired into the expenditure by seeking relevant documents and confirmations. The PCIT's assumption that the payment was interest was unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as the figures in Form 10B were typographical errors, similar to an earlier assessment year where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions.
The ITAT confirmed the deletion of disallowance on club fees, holding it as business expenditure. It also confirmed the deletion of addition on account of dividend income, finding it related to earlier investments from own funds. The assessee's appeal on setting off unabsorbed depreciation was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the initial restriction of disallowance to the exempt income was in line with judicial precedent. Therefore, the issue was debatable, and the AO wrongly invoked Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present his case before the AO. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the sale and lease-back transactions were valid and not sham, entitling the assessee to depreciation. It also allowed the deduction for management fees as revenue expenditure and remitted the issue of hire charges for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as the figures in Form 10B were typographical errors, similar to an earlier assessment year where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal admitted the appeals, noting a violation of natural justice due to the ex-parte order. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the sale and lease-back transactions were valid and not sham, entitling the assessee to depreciation. It also allowed the deduction for management fees as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that valid approval under Section 151 was obtained and that the investigation wing's input was sufficient for reopening. Cross-examination is not required at the reopening stage, and the service of the assessment order was valid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income received from co-operative banks. This decision was based on various High Court and Tribunal judgments that clarified the applicability of the section.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of late payment of employees' contribution to EPF/ESIC is to be deleted, as the payment was made before the due date for filing the return of income. The amendment by Finance Act, 2021 was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C is not attracted when purchases are made through accommodation bills and the AO did not conduct independent enquiry. The CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 12.5% on bogus purchases was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was because substantive additions on the same issues were confirmed in the hands of the entities that received the funds, and those entities did not appeal further.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was because substantive additions on the same issues were confirmed in the hands of the entities that received the funds, and those entities did not appeal further.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow only 25% of the bogus purchases as an addition to income. The Tribunal reasoned that the CIT(A) correctly applied the principle of taxing only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases, citing relevant High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to vacancy allowance for the period the property was vacant and that notional rent cannot be added for the rent-free period when the property was being made fit for occupation, as the lease agreement was not found to be sham.
The Tribunal admitted the appeals, noting a violation of natural justice due to the ex-parte order. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering it as the profit element. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be reasoned and supported by judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO before admitting and relying on fresh evidence submitted by the assessee. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Since the assessee was not prosecuting the appeal, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the lower appellate authority for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether interest under Section 234D is to be computed from the date of grant or receipt of refund is debatable. Therefore, the rectification order passed under Section 154 was set aside as it was based on a debatable issue, not a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal held that the present appeals were indeed duplicative of earlier appeals filed by the Department which had been dismissed. The additions in quantum proceedings had also been deleted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the appeal fell below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Furthermore, penalty cannot be levied on an estimated addition.
The Tribunal held that the present appeals were indeed duplicative of earlier appeals filed by the Department which were dismissed by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the appeal fell below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Furthermore, penalty cannot be levied on an estimated addition.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for deferred revenue expenditure, following its own previous decisions on identical issues. However, it upheld the disallowance of interest expenses as the assessee failed to prove the borrowed funds were used for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's PF/ESIC contribution paid before the return filing due date was unjustified, following previous judgments. It also directed the AO to allow the short-term capital loss on mutual fund switches, as the CPC had only considered the gains.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that a penalty notice must clearly specify the charge for which the penalty is being levied. An omnibus notice is vague and vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. However, late fees for periods after June 1, 2015, are sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantial compliance and that practical difficulties in furnishing segmental details in the diamond industry constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271G was not justifiable.