Loading ITAT cases…
625 orders · Page 8 of 13
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the manual appeal. However, since the online appeal was pending, the present appeal was considered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide reliable evidence to prove the assessee made investments in land purchase beyond the stated consideration. The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decisions on identical facts.
The Tribunal held that Section 12AB(1)(a) mandates issuing a final registration order, not a provisional one, when an application is made under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i). It also referred to a CBDT circular clarifying such provisional orders should be treated as final.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide reliable evidence to prove the assessee made investments in land purchase beyond the stated consideration. The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decisions on identical facts.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant proper opportunity for hearing and to consider the additional evidence.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. For TP adjustments, the corporate guarantee commission was restricted to 0.5%. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was restored to the AO for re-examination. Other grounds were also partly allowed or restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case, which estimated the Gross Profit at 6% on bogus purchases. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to estimate the Gross Profit at 6% on the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexation on the total cost of acquisition from the year of allotment, irrespective of the staggered payment of installments. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside due to a defective notice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexation on the total cost of acquisition from the year of allotment, irrespective of the staggered payment of installments. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside due to a defective notice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 9.97% of the non-genuine purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The AO's action of adding the total purchase value was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that in subsequent years, the lower authorities had accepted the assessee's claim to treat the Bandra property as self-occupied and the London property as deemed let out. Therefore, for the current assessment year, the Tribunal directed the AO to treat the Bandra property as deemed let out and the London property as self-occupied.
The Tribunal held that the network fee received by the assessee was neither Royalty nor FTS as per the India-Netherlands DTAA. The Tribunal noted that the services did not fall under the definition of Royalty and that no technical knowledge was 'made available' to the Indian entity as required for FTS.
The Tribunal has not yet provided its decision on the merits of the case. The provided text only outlines the grounds of appeal and the procedural history.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding the re-computation of business profits and capital gains, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Assessee's appeal regarding the rejection of long-term capital loss on debentures was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding it to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the revision order under Section 263 was bad in law as it was based on borrowed satisfaction and not independent application of mind. On merits, the Tribunal ruled that interest income from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), and Section 80P(4) does not deny this benefit to co-operative credit societies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided complete details of the transactions, including broker notes and demat statements, and there was no evidence of manipulative activities. The disallowance was based solely on the classification of the stock, which was not sufficient to doubt the genuineness of the loss.
The Tribunal restored the issue of determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions to the AO/TPO for fresh examination, directing the exclusion of certain comparable companies. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to a specific amount, finding the AO's application of Rule 8D unjustified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed opted for the VSV scheme for the original assessment order and not the Section 154 order. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. The Tribunal also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added while computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, on merits, it reduced the addition from 5% to 3% of the purchases, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of interest under section 244A was beyond the scope of rectification under section 154 as the issue of excluding periods for interest calculation requires a decision by higher authorities, which was not done. Therefore, it was not a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal did not require further adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case. Considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding exclusion of period due to COVID-19 for limitation, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding the re-computation of business profits and capital gains, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Assessee's appeal regarding the rejection of long-term capital loss on debentures was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding it to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal agreed that the mentioned paragraph was not warranted as it did not pertain to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the irrelevant paragraph from the original order.
The Tribunal found that the transaction was indeed reimbursement of expenses by the AE to the assessee, not the other way around. The lower authorities had incorrectly appreciated the facts. Therefore, the adjustment made by the TPO and upheld by the DRP was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 23(5) of the Act, introduced from AY 2018-19, could not be applied retrospectively for the year under consideration. It also affirmed that rental income from stock-in-trade is taxable as business income, not income from house property, based on High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal agreed that the mentioned paragraph was not warranted as it did not pertain to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the irrelevant paragraph from the original order.
The Tribunal held that interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not warranted as the assessee's own funds exceeded investments. For administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), an ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of exempt income was directed.
The Tribunal restored the addition of Rs. 1,91,113/- to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee will be provided an opportunity to furnish details and substantiate these expenses before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, effective from 01.04.2021, is not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee had deposited the employee's contributions before the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal restored the Section 56(2)(viib) issue to the AO for fresh adjudication based on assessee's submissions and evidence. The interest disallowance issue was also remitted back to the AO for factual examination of the nexus between advances and funds.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had complied with the directions of the PCIT by treating the loss as short-term capital loss and allowing it to be carried forward. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction for disallowance. While the tonnage tax scheme did not fully exempt the assessee from disallowance on common expenses, an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the conditions imposed by the Principal Commissioner were not legally sustainable as they went beyond the scope of Section 12AB. The Tribunal vacated these conditions, stating that the law already provides for consequences of lapses.
The Tribunal held that while the law allows for conditional registration in certain circumstances, the conditions imposed by the Principal Commissioner were not legally sustainable as they sought to supplement the law and dictate the conduct of the trust beyond statutory provisions.
The Tribunal held that while the PCIT can inquire about the genuineness of activities and compliance with other laws, the conditions imposed on the trust's conduct were not legally sustainable. These conditions could not supplement the law or limit the consequences of lapses beyond what the statute provides.
The Tribunal held that while the Principal Commissioner has a role in verifying the genuineness of activities and compliance with other laws, he cannot impose conditions that are not envisaged by the statute. The conditions imposed were found to be beyond the scope of his authority and thus vacated.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their claim before the AO, subject to payment of costs. The grounds related to the validity of reopening were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the Principal Commissioner has a role in verifying the genuineness of activities and compliance with other laws, he cannot impose conditions that are not envisaged by the statute. The conditions imposed were found to be beyond the scope of his authority and thus vacated.
The Tribunal held that while the Principal Commissioner has a role in verifying the genuineness of activities and compliance with other laws, he cannot impose conditions that are not envisaged by the statute. The conditions imposed were found to be beyond the scope of his authority and thus vacated.
The Tribunal, finding that additional evidence was crucial for determining the nature of payments and that such evidence was not before the lower authorities, remanded the issue of royalty payments to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. Similarly, the transfer pricing issue regarding management services was also remanded.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable in their current form due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to seek recall upon completion of the moratorium period.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable in their current form due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to seek recall upon completion of the moratorium period.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Section 54EC deduction as the assessee did not disclose capital gains because they became nil after the deduction. The addition of bank deposits also required fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that while the PCIT can inquire about the genuineness of activities and compliance with other laws, the conditions imposed on the trust's conduct were not legally sustainable. These conditions could not supplement the law or limit the consequences of lapses beyond what the statute provides.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present evidence before the lower authorities. The disputed issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.