Loading ITAT cases…
488 orders · Page 8 of 10
The Tribunal held that the offshore distribution commission income is in the nature of business income and, as all operations were carried out outside India, it does not accrue or arise in India and is not taxable. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the offshore distribution commission income is in the nature of business income and, since all operations were carried out outside India, it does not accrue or arise in India and is not taxable.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments (2012-13 to 2016-17), additions could not be made without incriminating material found during the search. For AY 2011-12, the reopening was deemed invalid due to discrepancies in the reasons provided and lack of disclosure failure. For AY 2017-18, the addition on account of long-term capital gains from penny stock was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be granted for the assessment year in which the income is assessable, as per Rule 37BA(3)(i). It followed its own previous decision in the assessee's case for AY 2015-16.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be recomputed as directed by the CIT(A). It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the addition of interest on income tax refund for book profit calculation. However, the Tribunal deleted the ALP adjustment related to interest on share application money, following its own prior decisions.
The Tribunal allowed the grounds related to Section 14A, holding that the capital contributed to the partnership firm was for business purposes and the exempt income was consequential. However, it dismissed the grounds related to the computation of long-term capital loss, upholding the AO's method of indexation based on payment dates.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition and accepted the LTCG as exempt.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the AO's order. The AO had not made any addition in the reassessment proceedings, rendering the revision order under Section 263 invalid.
The Tribunal held that since the revenue authorities had accepted a similar position taken by the assessee in preceding assessment years without challenge, it was not appropriate to change that position in the current year. Therefore, the impugned adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275 of the Act. Therefore, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275 of the Act. Therefore, the penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be recomputed as directed by the CIT(A). It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the addition of interest on income tax refund for book profit calculation. However, the Tribunal deleted the ALP adjustment related to interest on share application money, following its own prior decisions.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a statement from Shri Rajkumar Kedia, which pertained to the shares in question and suggested they were used for accommodation entries. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide cross-examination if the statement was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that since the revenue authorities had accepted similar payments in preceding years without adjustment and did not challenge the relief granted in a subsequent year, it would not be appropriate to change the position in the current year. Therefore, the ALP adjustment was deleted.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be granted for the assessment year in which the income is assessable, as per Rule 37BA(3)(i). It followed its own previous decision in the assessee's case for AY 2015-16.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for a fresh decision, acknowledging the difficulties faced by the assessee in the new faceless regime. The NFAC is directed to pass a reasoned order on merit after considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on goodwill, stating that if intangibles are eligible, goodwill should also be, especially when acquired for consideration. Issues related to interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 50C, particularly the amended provisions including the word 'assessable', is prospective and not applicable to transactions prior to October 1, 2009. Since the transfer of rights was via an unregistered agreement before this date, Section 50C could not be applied to substitute the stamp duty value for the actual consideration.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and effective from 01.06.2015. Therefore, fees could not be levied for periods prior to this date.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as SEBI, after investigation, revoked its earlier restraint orders against the assessee, finding no violation of securities laws. Therefore, the LTCG was not to be treated as bogus.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on a change of opinion without any tangible material, following the Supreme Court's decision in Kelvinator of India Ltd. Consequently, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the show cause notice issued by the PCIT was not complied with by the assessee, and the impugned order was passed in the absence of submissions. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the issues for fresh examination after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the royalty payment for technical know-how was inadvertently included in the brand royalty transaction, leading to an incorrect transfer pricing adjustment. The AO was directed to modify the adjustment accordingly.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, holding that the management fees did not qualify as FTS under the 'make available' clause of the DTAA. Consequently, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271C cannot be sustained if the interest under Section 201(1A) has been deleted, especially when the payee has no resultant tax liability. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal. It confirmed the disallowance of INR 5,53,039/- for employee-related expenses but deleted the disallowance of INR 74,112/-. The Tribunal also noted that the additional grounds raised by the appellant were not pressed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) might have overlooked material information submitted by the assessee, despite the assessee claiming to have responded to notices. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271C cannot be sustained if the interest under Section 201(1A) has been deleted, especially when the payee has no resultant tax liability. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the interest expense disallowance was not justified as the funds were not borrowed for making interest-free advances. Regarding the SEZ deduction, the Tribunal ruled that provisions of the SEZ Act override other acts, allowing deduction for trading activities.
The Tribunal held that the interest expense disallowance was not justified as the funds were not borrowed for making interest-free advances. Regarding the SEZ deduction, the Tribunal ruled that provisions of the SEZ Act override other acts, allowing deduction for trading activities.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings that the percentage completion method was not applicable when the project was not completed and no sale had occurred. It also allowed deductions for interest and municipal taxes, and proportionate business expenses, finding no reason to restrict them based on the area let out.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding labour charges, restricting the disallowance to 5% based on past precedents. For sub-contract expenses, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made necessary inquiries and verified the expenditure. The absence of Form 3CL, which is to be submitted by DSIR and not the assessee, does not make the assessment order erroneous, especially when the assessee has no control over its submission. Therefore, the revisionary order under Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received was exempt from tax as the award was passed under the new Land Acquisition Act, 2013, and thus Section 96 of that Act applied. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of deemed income from unsold flats based on previous year's decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities did not fall under the restrictive provisions of the proviso to Section 2(15) and were in the nature of charitable purposes. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 10A deduction, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and noting that the AO could not controvert the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's ground regarding software consumable expenses, following a previous ITAT decision in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied by the AO, finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had partly allowed the assessee's appeal by restricting the penalty. The assessee's failure to appear and provide fresh material led to the dismissal of their appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 10A deduction, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and noting that the AO could not controvert the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's ground regarding software consumable expenses, following a previous ITAT decision in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 10A deduction, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and noting that the AO could not controvert the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's ground regarding software consumable expenses, following a previous ITAT decision in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and noted that a difference in turnover between service tax returns and profit and loss account does not automatically imply escaped income. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous. This was because the time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a consequential assessment order had expired, rendering the appeal academic. The assessee was given liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall if they wished to pursue the grounds.
The Tribunal is hearing an appeal and cross-objection filed by the revenue and assessee against an order of the CIT(A) dated 21.09.2016 for AY 2009-10. The specific decision of the Tribunal is not detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 54 to the extent she invested in the new residential property up to the date of filing the belated return under Section 139(4). The purchase of the new property was made before the deadline stipulated in Section 139(4).
The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted proper factual verification regarding the allowability of additional expenses claimed by the assessee. Therefore, this specific issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that TDR premium and transfer fees received from members are exempt from tax based on the principle of mutuality, following its own previous decisions and High Court rulings. Additions for these amounts were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, holding that foreign exchange gains from derivative contracts are part of export profits eligible for deduction under Section 10AA. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted proper factual verification regarding the allowability of additional expenses claimed by the assessee. Therefore, this specific issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, holding that foreign exchange gains from derivative contracts are part of export profits eligible for deduction under Section 10AA. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings that the percentage completion method was not applicable when the project was not completed and no sale had occurred. It also allowed deductions for interest and municipal taxes, and proportionate business expenses, finding no reason to restrict them based on the area let out.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal on technical grounds of delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.