Loading ITAT cases…
605 orders · Page 4 of 13
The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, no proceedings can remain pending with any Court or Tribunal once Insolvency Resolution Proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, the appeals are not maintainable in their current format.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's rectification order was unsustainable in law as it was based on a flawed miscellaneous application by the TPO and that the DRP had no jurisdiction to review its own order. Consequently, the TPO's order and the Assessing Officer's rectification order giving effect to it were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's directions were unsustainable in law as the TPO's application was not a rectification of a mistake apparent from the record but a review. Consequently, the rectification order passed by the AO and the TPO's order giving effect to the DRP's directions were quashed.
The Tribunal held that receipts from training services and computer reservation systems, including reimbursements, are not taxable in India under the Income Tax Act or the India-Netherlands tax treaty. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, no proceedings can remain pending with any Court or Tribunal once Insolvency Resolution Proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, the appeals are not maintainable in their current format.
The tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable in its current form because it was not signed by the official liquidator as required by Section 140 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the official liquidator to restore it by filing an amended form.
The Tribunal held that notional rent on properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under 'Income from house property' for assessment years prior to AY 2018-19. The introduction of Section 23(5) for such taxation was prospective. The AO's addition was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a fair hearing.
The Tribunal restored the issue of common expenses to the AO for re-examination based on earlier precedents in the assessee's own case, partly allowing the appeal on this ground. For carbon credit income, the Tribunal held it to be a capital receipt, not business income, following High Court and Tribunal decisions, and ordered its deletion.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the dividend income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the deletion of the higher disallowance by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to a vague show-cause notice under Section 274, which failed to specify the limb under which the penalty was proposed. This defect, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, renders the entire penalty proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as there was no new or tangible material before the AO to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The jurisdictional condition precedent for initiating reassessment was not fulfilled.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as there was no new or tangible material before the AO to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The jurisdictional condition precedent for initiating reassessment was not fulfilled.
The Tribunal held that notional rent on properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under 'Income from house property' for assessment years prior to AY 2018-19. The introduction of Section 23(5) for such taxation was prospective. The AO's addition was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities acted with a gross lack of application of mind by disallowing an expenditure that was not even claimed as a deduction by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that notional rent on properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under 'Income from house property' for assessment years prior to AY 2018-19. The introduction of Section 23(5) for such taxation was prospective. The AO's addition was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on the seized document was justified as the assessee failed to rebut the presumption that the document belonged to them. However, disallowances related to advertisement expenses were deleted as TDS was not required under Section 194C.
The Tribunal held that notional rent on properties held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed under 'Income from house property' for assessment years prior to AY 2018-19. The introduction of Section 23(5) for such taxation was prospective. The AO's addition was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity for a hearing. The Tribunal cautioned the assessee to cooperate fully in the remand proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. It relied on the Explanation to Section 35(1)(ii), which states that the donor's claim for deduction cannot be disturbed even if the donee institution's recognition is withdrawn, provided the donor acted in good faith.
The Tribunal held that ESOP costs are revenue expenditure and allowable as a deduction. It relied on previous judgments and CBDT circulars that support the deductibility of such expenses.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid by the Indian PE to the head office (GE-PE interest) cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee company. An additional ground regarding the non-applicability of Section 44C was admitted and remitted to the Assessing Officer for adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity of hearing, with a caution for future compliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a working partner in a firm subject to tax audit, was entitled to a later due date for filing returns. Since the returns for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 were filed within this extended due date, the set-off of brought forward losses was allowable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not cooperate with the lower authorities and the Tribunal. However, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenses, following earlier precedents. The addition on account of unaccounted receipts was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning advertisement and sales promotion expenses, following previous judgments and the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP. The addition on account of unaccounted receipts was restored to the AO for verification. The TP adjustment for notional interest was deleted.
The Tribunal held that receipts from training services and computer reservation systems, including reimbursements, are not taxable in India under the Income Tax Act or the India-Netherlands tax treaty. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that interest paid by the permanent establishment to the head office cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee company, even if allowed as a deduction for the PE. The additional ground regarding Section 44C was remitted to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning advertisement and sales promotion expenses, following previous judgments and the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP. The addition on account of unaccounted receipts was restored to the AO for verification. The TP adjustment for notional interest was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning advertisement and sales promotion expenses, following previous judgments and the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP. The addition on account of unaccounted receipts was restored to the AO for verification. The TP adjustment for notional interest was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessees, being part of the group providing accommodation entries, were not genuinely engaged in trading. Therefore, additions for low gross profit on trading were set aside. Furthermore, the enhancement of commission income by the CIT(A) was deemed unjustified and a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, no proceedings can remain pending with any Court or Tribunal once Insolvency Resolution Proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, the appeals are not maintainable in their current format.
The Tribunal held that receipts from training services and computer reservation systems, including reimbursements, are not taxable in India under the Income Tax Act or the India-Netherlands tax treaty. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) committed a gross violation of the principles of natural justice by dismissing the additional evidence without proper consideration. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence needed to be addressed by the AO for fair adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable because the insolvency proceedings had been initiated, and a moratorium was in place. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to the right to restore them after the insolvency process.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, no proceedings can remain pending with any Court or Tribunal once Insolvency Resolution Proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, the appeals are not maintainable in their current format.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It found that the CIT(A) had erred in arbitrarily treating a portion of the share sale consideration as non-compete fees and in rejecting the valuation methods.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the Rs. 21,00,000/- addition back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence. However, the ground regarding the rejection of books of account was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was because the assessee claimed its due date was extended due to audit requirements under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, and this audit report was filed for the first time before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the income at 1% of the credit entries, considering the assessee's failure to provide evidence for a lower commission rate and the nature of the transactions. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action to reopen the assessment was based on a 'change of opinion' as the issue was already examined and allowed in the original assessment. Therefore, the reopening was bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, finding no infirmity in the rejection of the assessee's contentions regarding the validity of proceedings and the additions made. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the additions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided more opportunities to the assessee and passed a speaking order. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits.