Loading ITAT cases…
605 orders · Page 8 of 13
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) were not applicable for the assessment years under consideration. Following precedents, the Tribunal ruled that such contributions made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal held that income from inland haulage charges is inextricably linked to shipping business in international traffic and thus covered by Article 8 of the India-UAE DTAA. Similarly, it was held that income from gross receipts from shipping business is also eligible for treaty benefits.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) were not applicable for the assessment years under consideration. Following precedents, the Tribunal ruled that such contributions made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal remitted the transfer pricing issue back to the TPO for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of license fees/royalty was also remitted back to the AO for fresh decision. The disallowance of belated employee EPF contributions was deleted, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the relevant amendments to Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) were not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is sustained on an estimated basis. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal found the addition sustained by the CIT(A) at 12.5% to be on the higher side, considering the assessee already offered a higher GP rate. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases for the assessment year.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal remitted the transfer pricing issue back to the TPO for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of license fees/royalty was also remitted back to the AO for fresh decision. The disallowance of belated employee EPF contributions was deleted, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was solely based on the statement of a promoter without corroborative material. The Tribunal also noted that the electronic evidence was not proved as per the Evidence Act.
The Tribunal held that the payment of employee's contribution to PF & ESIC made before the due date of filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the investment claim made under Section 54F of the Act was confirmed. The unregistered sale agreements were a key factor in this decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty. It reasoned that the assessee had made full disclosures and acted under a bonafide belief regarding the taxability of its income, making it a debatable issue. The Tribunal also noted that similar penalties in prior years were deleted by it, following High Court precedents where substantial questions of law were admitted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for substantial justice. Considering the assessee's consistent declaration of agricultural income and confirmation letters from relatives, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification on merits.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute interest payable on self-assessment tax from the date of payment to the date of refund. It also held that refunds should be adjusted against interest receivable first before adjusting against the principal amount.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from temporary deposit of unutilized business funds is to be treated as business income and not income from other sources. Consequently, the deduction under Section 80IB(9) was allowed on this interest income.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from temporary deposit of unutilized business funds is to be treated as business income and not income from other sources. Consequently, the deduction under Section 80IB(9) was allowed on this interest income.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute interest payable on self-assessment tax from the date of payment to the date of refund. It also held that refunds should be adjusted against interest receivable first before adjusting against the principal amount.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer for the legitimate right of TDS credit deducted by a public sector bank. The AO was directed to grant the TDS credit to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made adequate inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's declaration and source of investment. The purchase cost of shares was not required to be declared under the IDS, and the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide data to differentiate between genuine and non-genuine purchases or the profit earned on them. However, considering the assessee had already disclosed a Gross Profit of 15.55% and the suppliers were not proven to be entirely non-genuine, the disallowance was restricted to 2.5%.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present evidence, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The disputed issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that F&O transactions in derivatives on a recognized stock exchange are not speculative transactions as per Section 43(5)(d) of the Income Tax Act. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal recalled one appeal (ITA No. 7387/Mum/2019) as it was deemed infructuous due to a similar order being adjudicated. The other appeal (ITA No. 291/Mum/2022) was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the payments to KPMG International Co-operative, Switzerland, were covered by the principle of mutuality and were not taxable in India, thus no TDS was required. The Tribunal also relied on its own previous decisions in favour of the assessee for similar issues.
The Tribunal held that estimating income at 25% of on-money was on the higher side. Following the Settlement Commission's order for other group entities, the addition was restricted to 12% of the on-money.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from temporary deposit of unutilized business funds is to be treated as business income and not income from other sources. Consequently, the deduction under Section 80IB(9) was allowed on this interest income.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's readiness to provide evidence, restored the disputed issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 4,28,300 cash was explained by the cash balance in the books of the family members. Regarding administrative expenses and additions based on rough notes, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanations regarding commission calculations to be convincing and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim under Section 158A as the issue was identical to one pending before the High Court. The appeal was disposed of pending the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the legal and professional charges were crystallized in the current year and thus allowable. It also held that the expenditure on vibration dampers constituted current repairs under Section 31(i) and not capital expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 are prospective. Prior to these amendments, if employees' contributions to PF & ESI were remitted before the due date of filing the income tax return, they were allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not comply with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules regarding the admission of additional evidence. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) can be levied when the assessment is completed under Section 143(3), as this implies the AO has condoned the assessee's earlier absence. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that details regarding the buyer's credit were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal found that details regarding the buyer's credit were not properly considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee ultimately complied and the assessment was completed, the penalty for non-compliance on a single date was not justified. The AO had implicitly condoned the absence by completing the assessment.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the view taken by the High Courts of Karnataka and Gujarat in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that the legal and professional charges were crystallized in the current year and thus allowable. It also held that the expenditure on vibration dampers constituted current repairs under Section 31(i) and not capital expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional did not amend the appeal form. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to file fresh appeals or seek restoration.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(34) for dividend income was allowable, even if Section 11 was violated due to prohibited investments. The denial of exemption should be restricted only to the income derived from prohibited investments, not the entire income of the trust.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(34) for dividend income was allowable, even if Section 11 was violated due to prohibited investments. The denial of exemption should be restricted only to the income derived from prohibited investments, not the entire income of the trust.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(34) for dividend income was allowable, even if Section 11 was violated due to prohibited investments. The denial of exemption should be restricted only to the income derived from prohibited investments, not the entire income of the trust.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(34) for dividend income was allowable, even if Section 11 was violated due to prohibited investments. The denial of exemption should be restricted only to the income derived from prohibited investments, not the entire income of the trust.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed PF contributions was not a permissible adjustment under section 143(1) for the relevant assessment year, as the amendment was prospective. The issue of salary disallowance was restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance for delayed provident fund payment, following a coordinate bench decision. For the motor car expenditure, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after verification of details.
The Tribunal held that the department's failure to produce the file and the lack of evidence of prior approval under Section 151 rendered the notice under Section 148 invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was also held to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) to a non-existent company after amalgamation is void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order framed based on such a notice is invalid.
The Tribunal held that if the same issues are decided in the main quantum appeal, the rectification application would become academic. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide the quantum appeal first and then the rectification proceedings.