Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 9 of 9
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the resolution reached. The Department did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to filing a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance. The assessee had provided documentary evidence to show that each unit was physically separate, had STPI approvals, and maintained separate lines of business and employees, fulfilling the conditions for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was bound by law to adjudicate all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, even if initially withdrawn and then sought to be restored. The CIT(A)'s refusal to do so was incorrect.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchase amount cannot be treated as non-genuine. Instead, only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed.
The Tribunal held that the main international transactions were already at arm's length. For medical transcription services, the assessee's higher average line rate already accounted for interest costs. For IT services, the working capital adjustment in benchmarking covered the impact of receivables.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance. The assessee had provided documentary evidence to show that each unit was physically separate, had STPI approvals, and maintained separate lines of business and employees, fulfilling the conditions for Section 10A deduction.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchase amount cannot be treated as non-genuine. Instead, the addition should be restricted to the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases, estimated at the assessee's historical gross profit rate of 9%.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal. It upheld the deletion of additions related to project profits, loss on transfer of a project, and sundry creditors. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of disallowance of interest expense and restricted the addition on bogus purchases to 12.5%. However, it confirmed the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erroneously dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on incorrect assumptions. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the loans and advances were made out of commercial expediency for purchasing land under related entities due to land ceiling laws, and thus not covered by section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and a CBDT circular.
The ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal denovo after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice on the assessee. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's consistent non-compliance, decided to grant one last opportunity. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit evidence for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders. The Tribunal found that the addition of ₹14 lacs and the consequential disallowance of interest were not justified.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It followed the favorable decisions of the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts in cases of similar nature.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It followed the favorable decisions of the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts in cases of similar nature.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed favorable decisions from non-jurisdictional High Courts in case of conflict.
The Tribunal held that once the revision order passed under Section 263 was set aside, any subsequent proceedings arising from it would not survive. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was found to be without infirmity.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It followed the favorable decisions of the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts in cases of similar nature.
The Tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order regarding rental income, as a similar issue had been decided in favor of the assessee by the ITAT in prior years. Regarding the bank guarantee and municipal taxes, the Tribunal found no prejudice to the revenue and quashed the CIT's order.