Loading ITAT cases…
517 orders · Page 9 of 11
The Tribunal held that the subscription income for access to a standard online database is not royalty. It followed its own previous orders and a High Court ruling, stating that such access does not involve the transfer of copyright or imparting of scientific knowledge.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the peak credit of the unsecured loan from the divorced wife as unexplained cash credit due to the assessee's failure to establish genuineness. The disallowance of the mosque payment was also upheld as it was not exclusively for business purposes, and the disallowance of travelling expenses for personal use was sustained due to lack of substantiation.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's average own funds were more than its average investments, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. This decision followed the Tribunal's own prior ruling in identical cases for earlier assessment years.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to availing the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to make submissions after receiving notice, failing which the CIT(A) could take an adverse view.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it was due to incorrect legal advice. It then confirmed the PCIT's order to the extent that the AO failed to conduct necessary verification regarding share application money under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the CP and GIC divisions should be benchmarked separately, restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer/TPO for re-evaluation. It also directed that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted only to international transactions with AEs, not the entire entity.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated based on a reappraisal of material already on record and available during the original assessment, constituting a mere change of opinion. Therefore, the reassessment and the consequent order were set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Department did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that only the profit element embedded in unproved purchases can be brought to tax. The Tribunal followed its own precedent and the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were already taxed in the director's hands, preventing double taxation. The difference in trade payables was explained by the assessee with supporting creditor details. The restricted disallowance of 3% on expenses was deemed justified given the nature of the business and cash transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on share trading profit and unsecured loan addition due to lack of evidence. The appeal regarding set off of speculation losses was dismissed as infructuous. The disallowance of interest expenses was partly sustained, and the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted based on the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that IT support services do not make available technical knowledge to the recipient, thus not qualifying as FTS under the DTAA. It also noted that the DRP had already held the receipts not to be 'Royalty'.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2021-22. Therefore, contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the issue of 'freebies' was sub judice before the High Court and could not be re-adjudicated. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding R&D expenses, following a previous decision in its own case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 under Section 68, finding that the assessee failed to discharge its onus. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the legality of the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that issues already decided in completed assessments without new incriminating material should not be re-adjudicated, especially when pending before the High Court. The assessee's appeal was allowed, following a previous ITAT decision that R&D expenses cannot be allocated to manufacturing units.
The Tribunal held that the rent paid was not excessive when compared to unrelated parties and the AO failed to provide comparable instances. Similarly, management fees and commission payments were allowed as the AO did not establish excessiveness with comparable data. The loans and public deposits were deemed genuine as the assessee provided sufficient documentation, including the creditor's balance sheet and proof of repayment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020'. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 under Section 68, finding that the assessee failed to discharge its onus. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the legality of the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the APA. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable in its current format because the respondent company was liquidated and no longer existed. The liquidator had not appeared despite notices.
The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), they are allowable as a deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions of consultancy services, overturning the TPO's decision to use TNMM. The issue of setting off brought forward losses was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that the rent paid was not excessive when compared to unrelated parties and the AO failed to provide comparable instances. Similarly, management fees and commission payments were allowed as the AO did not establish excessiveness with comparable data. The loans and public deposits were deemed genuine as the assessee provided sufficient documentation, including the creditor's balance sheet and proof of repayment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings and the addition under Section 68. The assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the parties.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was not sustainable. It followed a coordinate bench decision which stated that payments made before the due date of filing the income tax return are deductible, even if made after the statutory due date for PF remittance.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not acquire ownership rights in the project and only had the right to collect toll, the expenditure incurred on the foreclosed project should be allowed as a business loss.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly considered the facts and circumstances, including the developer's inability to provide the original flat and the nature of the transaction as an amendment to a pre-existing agreement. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the new manufacturing facility for 'Whisper E-line' constituted a separate industrial undertaking. Therefore, it was eligible for 100% deduction under Section 80-IB(4) of the Act.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For Section 50C, the AO needs to verify the facts regarding the inclusion of road area. For Section 54F, the AO must ascertain if the two flats were converted into a single residential unit.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. The AO's belief for reopening was based solely on the ITAT's observations in another case, without independent inquiry or formation of belief. The Tribunal also noted issues with the sanction for issuing the notice.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC paid after the due date of the respective acts but before the due date of filing the return of income is not justified. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the amendment to Section 43B and 36(1)(va) is prospective.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under section 143(1) are limited to claims that are conclusively inadmissible based on the record. Payments made before the due date of filing the income tax return are deductible, even if made after the statutory due date for PF/ESIC. The tax audit report's observations do not automatically lead to disallowance under section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deleting the addition solely on the technical ground of lack of inquiry by the AO, without conducting further inquiry itself. The CIT(A) has the power to make further inquiries or direct the AO to do so under Section 250(4) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that a bonafide write-off is sufficient for claiming bad debt deduction, and the evidence showed the transactions were delivery-based. The objections raised by the lower authorities were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following a previous ITAT decision. The claim for provision for overdue interest was allowed in favor of the assessee, aligning with a prior ITAT ruling.
The Tribunal held that the standby maintenance charges received by the assessee were not in the nature of FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on identical facts for preceding assessment years.
The Tribunal found no basis for disallowance under Section 14A, noting that the direct expenditure incurred by the assessee was nominal and not linked to earning exempt income. The Revenue did not specify which expenditure heads were considered for disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to bonafide reasons and not deliberate. Following Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following a previous ITAT decision. The claim for provision for overdue interest was allowed in favor of the assessee, aligning with a prior ITAT ruling.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the Finance Bill, 2022, which clarified that education cess is not deductible when computing business income.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under section 143(1) based on a tax auditor's report regarding delayed PF/ESIC payments is not sustainable. Payments made before the due date of filing the income tax return are deductible, even if made after the statutory due date for the PF/ESIC contribution.
The Tribunal found that additional evidence regarding the possession of the Bandra Kurla Complex property was submitted. To provide a fair opportunity, the appeal was remanded back to the AO for considering this evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not a business entity and its receipts are for the welfare of its members, not for profit. The PCIT failed to establish that the assessee is a business entity.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that rental income from property owned by the assessee should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act.
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 found that the interest calculation under Section 234B was excessive, as interest was charged beyond the date of the rectification order despite tax payments being made earlier. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.