Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer were not maintainable due to the assessee being under insolvency resolution process as per Section 14 of IBC 2016. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to refile upon the completion of the insolvency process.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years. For the disallowance of purchases, the Tribunal directed the AO to disallow only 3.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the profit already declared by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the IT support services did not 'make available' technical knowledge to the recipient, thus not constituting FTS under the DTAA. Similarly, the receipts were not considered Royalty. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify and grant TDS credit.
The Tribunal, following its previous order on a similar appeal by the assessee for the same assessment year, further reduced the disallowance rate from 10% to 5%. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the omission. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that if the investment for the new house is made within the time limit specified under Section 139(4), the exemption under Section 54 cannot be denied merely for failing to deposit the capital gains in the capital gains account scheme before the due date under Section 139(1). The compliance with Section 54(1) is substantial, while Section 54(2) is procedural.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the relevant documents submitted by the assessee and incorrectly relied on a previous settlement commission order. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(2A) is available for 'profits of eligible business' and not restricted to 'profits derived from eligible business' as per Section 80IA(1). The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the charging of interest under Section 234B.
The Tribunal held that payment for the use of a copyrighted article is not royalty. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis, the Tribunal ruled that the reimbursement for the software was not royalty and therefore not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the appellant should not be left remediless due to the non-disposal of their condonation application. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh after considering the decision on the condonation application.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(2A) is available for 'profits of eligible business' and not restricted to 'profits derived from eligible business' as per Section 80IA(1). The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the charging of interest under Section 234B.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the notional addition, following the principle of consistency. Since the Revenue had not appealed similar deletions in prior years, it was not appropriate to take a divergent stand in the current year without any factual differences.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a mere employee with meager salary, could not have made the unexplained payments. Therefore, such additions should be made in the hands of the employer, Mr. PAK, unless the Assessing Officer can establish a direct link to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on a misunderstanding of which dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was therefore restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on loans for stock-in-trade is an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) when the project is stock-in-trade and not a fixed asset. The decision of the Special Bench in Wall Street Construction Ltd. was distinguished.
The Tribunal held that the addition of notional income for future accrual and the valuation of flats were unjustified. The AO erred in considering income that had not actually accrued to the assessee in the year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied have been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings do not survive.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have dealt with the assessee's submissions on merits and passed a speaking order, even in the absence of the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's assumption of no reply was factually incorrect and that the order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice by not affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction of import of finished goods for distribution, especially when the assessee does not undertake any value addition. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's status as a deemed university and the objects of UGC and AICTE regarding consultancy services warranted further examination. The issue of whether the proviso to Section 2(15) applies to the assessee's activities also needed to be considered.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D only on shares yielding dividend income and to examine the correct TDS credit allowable to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied have been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings do not survive.
The Tribunal noted that a previous order by the Tribunal had already quashed the PCIT's revision order under Section 263. Since the basis of the subsequent proceedings was nullified, the present appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge his onus to prove the loans were bogus, especially after the assessee provided documentary evidence and requested cross-examination of a key witness. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a mere employee with meager salary, could not have made the unexplained payments. Therefore, such additions should be made in the hands of the employer, Mr. PAK, unless the Assessing Officer can establish a direct link to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made a possible view after considering the material on record, including corresponding sales and evidence of payments. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction was invalidly exercised.
The Tribunal held that receipts from training services and computer reservation system services are not chargeable to tax in India under the Act or the India-Netherlands tax treaty. It also held that amounts received towards Human Resources related costs are non-taxable.
The Tribunal held that the lease rentals paid by the assessee were revenue in nature, especially since the assessee was not the owner of the vehicles and returned them at the end of the lease period. The Tribunal also noted that similar lease rentals were allowed in the preceding assessment year without any change in facts or law.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made a possible view after considering the material on record, including corresponding sales and evidence of payments. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction was invalidly exercised.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had passed away and was proceeded ex-parte in earlier proceedings. The legal heir sought an opportunity to present the case with supporting documents.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to quash the reassessment proceedings. The reassessment was initiated based on incorrect factual assumptions by the AO, rendering the entire process invalid.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) disallowed the expense as prior period, the assessee claimed it as deductible on a payment basis under Section 43B. However, considering a Supreme Court ruling on employee contributions to PF/ESI, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the Liaison Office (LO) of the assessee's subsidiary did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India as it was only permitted to act as a communication channel and represent the parent company. The activities of the LO were limited and did not involve core business operations.
The Tribunal held that the conditional deletion by the CIT(A), which allows the addition to revive if the substantive addition in the third party's case is deleted, is to protect the revenue's interest and is not excessive. The appeal was dismissed as the assessee had already received relief and challenging the condition was premature.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of interest disallowance under Section 14A based on the assessee's own funds exceeding investments. The expenditure disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the AO for factual verification. Other claims by the assessee were either dismissed or restored.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as the Swastik Group had already surrendered the cash transactions as their undisclosed income. Therefore, adding the same to the assessee's income would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the sales tax incentive received by the assessee under the New Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993, was capital in nature. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant due interest under section 244A(1A) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide proof of proper service of the notice. It also acknowledged the assessee's claim of a change of address as a reasonable cause for non-compliance, citing precedent.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified as the assessee had neither earned any exempt income nor claimed any expenditure for earning such income. The amendment to Section 14A was also held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly restricted the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee commission, following the consistent decisions of higher appellate forums, including the Bombay High Court, in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition made under Section 14A to the book profit for Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly granted partial relief on salary and brokerage/commission, the disallowance on brokerage/commission needed further adjustment based on previous year's payments. The addition under Section 2(22)(e) was deleted by the CIT(A) and not contested by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly restricted the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee commission, following the consistent decisions of higher appellate forums, including the Bombay High Court, in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of addition made under Section 14A to the book profit for Section 115JB.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was mechanical and that the additional evidence sought to be filed by the assessee was crucial. The Tribunal decided to allow the additional evidence and set aside the case to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT passed the order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as the adjournment request was ignored. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the PCIT for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessment and appellate proceedings were based on surmises and botched investigations, as the lower authorities failed to examine the assessee's evidence and provide necessary documents or cross-examination opportunities. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's bonafide mistake in approaching the wrong forum and the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal further held that the Pr. Commissioner could not have invoked Section 263 jurisdiction without an independent application of mind, especially when the issue was debatable and arose from the Assessing Officer's own assessment order.
The Tribunal held that while the gain on sale of depreciable assets is to be treated as short-term capital gain under Section 50, brought forward business losses can be set off against such gains. However, a claim for setting off brought forward losses from earlier years was denied as it pertained to the original assessment, not the reassessment.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided bank statements showing withdrawals, the source of the remaining cash deposited could not be fully substantiated. Therefore, the addition was restricted to the unexplained portion of the cash deposited.