Loading ITAT cases…
625 orders · Page 10 of 13
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on the helicopter was to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. For certain other issues, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim based on previous decisions or by verifying documents.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted an inquiry by issuing a notice under Section 142(1) and examining the reconciliation statement provided by the assessee. Since the assessment order was not erroneous, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.
The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred for acquiring shares in a subsidiary, if demonstrably for commercial expediency, is allowable. It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income is earned.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found to support the additions, they were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made proper inquiries and applied his mind to both issues, accepting a possible view. The PCIT's revision order was found to be unsustainable as the AO's assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to disprove the findings of the lower authorities regarding profit shifting through client code modifications. The Tribunal agreed that the modifications appeared to be a pre-arranged modus operandi to evade taxes.
The Tribunal held that the exclusion provisions of Section 80P(4) were not applicable to the assessee as it was not a cooperative bank. Therefore, the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) was justified.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the issue of interest expenditure reallocation, finding that the assessee provided sufficient details. For transfer pricing issues concerning performance and financial guarantees, the Tribunal held that no adjustment was warranted, upholding the assessee's position or a mutually agreed rate.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. For the unaccounted sales issue, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication to allow the assessee to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexation for computing capital gains for the purpose of Section 115JB. The CIT(A)'s order allowing this deduction was upheld.
The Tribunal held that Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, concerning transfer pricing, presupposes the existence of 'income'. Since no income had accrued or been received by the assessee under Section 5, no notional income could be brought to tax under Section 92. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal agreed that the additional ground raised by the assessee required factual verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for examination and appropriate decision.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the issues back for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that M/s Acropetal Technologies Ltd. and M/s Infosys BPO Ltd. were not valid comparables due to functional dissimilarity and size differences. The AO/TPO was directed to re-work the arm's length margin excluding these comparables.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appeals are a continuation of pending suits against the corporate debtor, which is prohibited under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, during the moratorium period. The appeals were also found to be not maintainable in their current form as the Interim Resolution Professional was not impleaded.
The Tribunal held that the appeals are a continuation of pending suits against the corporate debtor, which is prohibited under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, during the moratorium period. The appeals were also found to be not maintainable in their current form as the Interim Resolution Professional was not impleaded.
The Tribunal held that the appeals are a continuation of pending suits against the corporate debtor, which is prohibited under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, during the moratorium period. The appeals were also found to be not maintainable in their current form as the Interim Resolution Professional was not impleaded.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if the assessee does not appear. The dismissal of the appeal without dealing with the merits was found to be contrary to the scheme of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the appeals are a continuation of pending suits against the corporate debtor, which is prohibited under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, during the moratorium period. The appeals were also found to be not maintainable in their current form as the Interim Resolution Professional was not impleaded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D, and that the disallowances were not justified based on the facts and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D, and that the disallowances were not justified based on the facts and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries and correctly treated the expenses as revenue expenditure. Therefore, the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were commercial in nature based on a profit-sharing understanding, not simple loans, and thus Section 68 was not applicable. However, it directed the AO to verify if the profits were actually passed on to the investors in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that the delay in claiming capital gains exemption was not attributable to the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to grant interest under Section 244A up to the date of refund. It also allowed additional interest under Section 244A(1A) from June 1, 2016, till the refund date.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries and correctly treated the expenses as revenue expenditure. Therefore, the PCIT was not justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the appeals are a continuation of pending suits against the corporate debtor, which is prohibited under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, during the moratorium period. The appeals were also found to be not maintainable in their current form as the Interim Resolution Professional was not impleaded.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's allegation was mere surmise without any basis and that the assessee had discharged her onus under Section 68 by explaining the cash deposits with opening balance and cash withdrawals from business proceeds. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that TNMM was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction, as CUP was not applicable due to data unavailability. The Tribunal also noted that similar transactions were accepted in prior years and directed the deletion of the adjustment.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search, and the assessment was unabated. Since the AO's assessment was based on details filed during proceedings and not on search material, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the allowability of set off of brought forward losses by the assessee is contingent upon the allowability of carry forward of such losses by the original entity (M/s. Kovalam Hotels Ltd.). Since the carry forward was disallowed for M/s. Kovalam Hotels Ltd. and that order was still in operation, the set off could not be allowed to the assessee.
The tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Directors was not maintainable as it should have been filed by the IRP or the new management. The assessee was given liberty to refile the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was deleted, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the CPC was not justified in making disallowances under Section 143(1) for delayed payments of employee contributions to PF and ESI. It relied on jurisdictional High Court judgments stating that such payments are deductible if made before the due date of filing the income tax return.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the authenticity of the supplier, the entire addition could not be deleted as it would impact the turnover. Following a previous order for AY 2009-10, the addition was restricted to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that direct and exclusive NRI Desk expenses incurred by the Head Office are not hit by Section 44C and are allowable in full as per general provisions of the Act. Allocated/shared expenses are to be considered within the purview of Section 44C.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for applying Section 94(7) were not cumulatively met as the units were purchased much before the three-month period prior to the record date. Therefore, the loss arising from the sale of mutual fund units was not to be ignored.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234C is not leviable for shortfalls in advance tax payment on income that accrues unexpectedly, provided the full tax is paid by March 31st. Therefore, the interest charged was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in assuming that the transfer of property had taken place. The agreement stipulated that possession would be handed over only after the developer obtained an Intimation of Disapproval (IOD), which was issued in a subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without fully considering potential reasons for the assessee's non-appearance. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient documentation. The AO failed to make further inquiries to disprove the genuineness of the transactions, and the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not offer the unearthed income voluntarily and the addition was made based on information received from the Investigation Wing. The assessee's claim that penalty cannot be levied on estimated additions was rejected, and the penalty was upheld.
The tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1) for delayed employee contributions to PF/ESI are not justified when payments are made before the due date of filing the income tax return, especially considering jurisdictional High Court judgments. The auditor's report alone cannot be the basis for such disallowances in the 143(1) processing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions on account of Employee Benefit Expenses and Forex Loss, finding the evidence sufficient. For Other Operating Expenses and loss on onerous contracts, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowances to be reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notice. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) was deleted, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and taken a possible view, supported by judicial precedents, that the interest income was eligible for deduction. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's action under Section 263 was not justified.
The tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1) for delayed employee contributions to PF/ESI are not justified when payments are made before the due date of filing the income tax return, especially considering jurisdictional High Court judgments. The auditor's report alone cannot be the basis for such disallowances in the 143(1) processing.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned in that year. Following established High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the amount of exempt income.