Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 8 of 9
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C cannot be made based on retracted statements, as these do not constitute incriminating material found during search. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit on bogus purchases from 25% to 12.5% and confirmed the disallowance of director's remuneration reimbursement due to lack of evidence. The ground regarding violation of natural justice was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C cannot be made based on retracted statements, as these do not constitute incriminating material found during search. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the professional fees were incurred for regular business activities and could not be considered capital expenditure. Based on previous favorable decisions for the assessee and the nature of the expenditure, the disallowance was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of cash sales lacked a scientific basis and that the addition resulted in double taxation as sales were already offered to tax. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents where similar additions were deleted.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues were remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions regarding share application money and subsequent allotment of shares to be realistic and supported by evidence. The lower authorities had not considered this material evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 6,00,000 was remuneration from a partnership firm and should be treated as income from business and profession, not salary. The addition under the head 'income from salary' was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the disallowance of indirect expenses was restricted to 10%, and the issue of short TDS was dismissed as not pressed. For AY 2012-13, the addition for unexplained credit was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with admitted additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses to associated enterprises, when supported by actuals and without markup, should not be subject to transfer pricing adjustment, especially when similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee in prior years. Disallowances related to contract accounting methods were also decided in favor of the assessee based on consistency.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share premium transactions. The AO's reliance on retracted statements and the timing of the company's takeover were also considered.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to present evidence to substantiate their claim regarding the share transactions.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, reducing the disallowance under Section 14A and allowing exclusion from book profit. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the exclusion of sales tax incentives.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The relief sought in the appeal had already been granted in subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions, including purchase and sale through recognized stock exchanges and banking channels. The lower authorities relied solely on information about the company being a penny stock without independent inquiry.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable when there is no exempt income. The Tribunal also noted that deduction for leave encashment on a provision basis is inadmissible, but allowed it on a payment basis when actually made.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, reducing the disallowance under Section 14A and allowing exclusion from book profit. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the exclusion of sales tax incentives.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the AO had received Form No. 3. Consequently, the appeal was directed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal by the revenue had already been dismissed on merits. Therefore, adjudicating on the issue of reference to special audit was considered academic. The grounds raised by the assessee in their cross-objection were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the guarantee commission received by the assessee did not accrue or was deemed to accrue in India. Therefore, it was not taxable in India, following its own previous decisions on identical facts for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the incentives received by the assessee, including deferred sales tax, special capital incentive, and excise duty exemption, were capital in nature and should be excluded from total income. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on other grounds related to expenditure.
The Tribunal corrected the order to reflect that the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had found that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank account details, demonstrating that the time deposits were made from the assessee's current account which showed receipts from various sources, including maturity of prior fixed deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the disallowance of indirect expenses was restricted to 10%, and the issue of short TDS was dismissed as not pressed. For AY 2012-13, the addition for unexplained credit was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with admitted additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that employee's contributions to PF and ESIC, when paid after the statutory due date, are not eligible for deduction, even if paid before the due date for filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was followed.
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition for calculating book profits under Section 115JB, remanding the quantification. It also remanded the issue of provision for doubtful debts for book profit computation to the AO for verification. The MAT credit was allowed to be carried forward.
The Tribunal held that the guarantee commission received by the assessee did not accrue or was deemed to accrue in India. Therefore, it was not taxable in India, following its own previous decisions on identical facts for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal allowed the deletion of the addition for cash deposits, stating that the Assessing Officer failed to substantiate the information and violated DRP directions. The issues of TDS and self-assessment tax credit were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the cash deposit issue, considering the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment on reimbursement of expenses was not warranted, following its own prior decisions. The adjustment was deleted as the expenses were reimbursed on a cost-to-cost basis without any profit element.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence provided by the assessee. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the cash deposits, considering the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing all necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to rebut this evidence, making the addition unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make an addition on an issue not mentioned in the reasons for reopening, especially when no addition was made on the original grounds for reopening. This is based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that interest on income tax refund is taxable under Article 11 of the DTAA and not as business profits connected with a Permanent Establishment (PE). The Assessing Officer was directed to tax the interest accordingly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, the disallowance of indirect expenses was restricted to 10%, and the issue of short TDS was dismissed as not pressed. For AY 2012-13, the addition for unexplained credit was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with admitted additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked the necessary nexus between the material and the belief of escaped income. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked the necessary nexus between the alleged material and the belief of escapement of income. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases, relying on a previous decision for an identical issue in the assessee's own case. The AO was directed to confirm the addition to the extent of 5%.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to substantiate the allegation of bogus transactions. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, it was found that the addition was made merely on suspicion without sufficient material evidence.
The Tribunal held that the executive search fees and management fees were not taxable in India. It relied on its own previous decisions and the principle of consistency, finding that these payments were either reimbursement of expenses or did not fall under the definition of fees for technical services or royalty as per the treaty.
The Tribunal held that the executive search fees and reimbursements were not taxable as fees for technical services, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case and Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technicality without deciding on merits. The assessee was not required to file a report under Section 44AB of the Act, and the auditor's report under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was filed later.
The Tribunal held that the Assessment Year mentioned in the cause title of the order dated 01/03/2018 was incorrect. The correct Assessment Year should be 2015-16, and all other contents of the original order remain unchanged.
The Tribunal held that the purchases cannot be treated as bogus or unexplained expenditure solely because the suppliers did not appear before the AO. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including quantitative details and proof of payment through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were justified in restricting the deduction for IPO expenses under Section 35D to 1/5th, as the assessee failed to substantiate its claim for the full amount. The disallowances under Section 43B and other grounds were also upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide necessary details.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal regarding the taxability of IT support services, allowing them for statistical purposes. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination based on additional evidence and prior rulings.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice must clearly specify the grounds for penalty proceedings, and an omnibus notice without striking off irrelevant limbs is bad in law. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal based on incorrect facts and grounds, likely pertaining to a different case. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.