Loading ITAT cases…
477 orders · Page 3 of 10
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a 'callous order' by disposing of the appeal for AY 2012-13 as if it were for AY 2017-18. Therefore, the issue of non-granting of interest on refund was not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that commission payable to whole-time directors is part of their salary and TDS is deductible under Section 192 only at the time of payment. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the discount was given in the interest of business to maintain a crucial customer relationship and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove its genuineness and the subsequent business benefits derived from it.
The assessee's representative submitted a letter to withdraw the appeals for both assessment years. The Tribunal, having heard the submissions, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the loss on ELDs is notional and requires verification of its quantum by the AO. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned in the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary sanction from the Pr.CIT/CIT as required by Section 151 for reopening beyond four years. Consequently, the assessment order was also deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that similar additions made in preceding assessment years were deleted by it. Following its consistent view, the addition made under Section 41(1) for the current assessment year was also directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that a trust is not entitled to claim standard deduction on rental income, following High Court precedents. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to allow 15% exemption under Section 11(1)(a) and set off expenses to the extent of income.
The Tribunal held that liabilities associated with the transferred project were also transferred to the sister concern, and therefore, no addition was warranted. Regarding estimated profit, the Tribunal reduced the estimation based on the sister concern's profit.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwaas Act, the foundation for levying the penalty was removed. Therefore, the penalty order was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that commission payable to whole-time directors is part of their salary and TDS is deductible under Section 192 only at the time of payment. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the assessee's agricultural income, which was accepted by the AO and CIT(A). The gift received from the HUF was also held to be exempt from tax as it was out of the HUF's current year's income.
The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss incurred on ECB loans taken to purchase indigenous assets is a revenue expenditure. This is because the primary objective was to save interest costs and hedge revenue receipts, not to acquire new capital assets.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's directions were not justified as the Bombay High Court had already decided the matter in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the interest income was not chargeable to tax in India.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were defective because they failed to file independent appeals for each of the six original orders. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as defective.
The Tribunal held that liabilities associated with the transferred project were also transferred to the sister concern, and therefore, no addition was warranted. Regarding estimated profit, the Tribunal reduced the estimation based on the sister concern's profit.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were defective because they failed to file independent appeals for each of the six orders passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as defective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of producing odoriferous compounds qualified as manufacturing for Section 80IC deduction. For another issue, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO to restrict disallowance to investments yielding tax-free income.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were defective because they failed to file independent appeals for each of the six original orders. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as defective.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present their case before the tax authorities due to notices being sent to the wrong address. In the interest of natural justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The assessee's representative submitted a letter to withdraw the appeals for both assessment years. The Tribunal, having heard the submissions, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Order and Draft Assessment Order passed in the name of a non-existent entity are void-ab-initio. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the Final Assessment Order, are vitiated and quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to charge guarantee commission at 0.50%, delete the adjustment for interest on share application money, and apply the concessional tax rate under Section 112 for capital gains on depreciable assets. The interest rate on outstanding balances was confirmed as LIBOR plus 3%.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessment order, despite being erroneous, was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The excess rent disallowance, even if considered, would still leave the application of funds for educational purposes well above the statutory requirement.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not valid as the Assessing Officer failed to record the required satisfaction. However, the addition for cash rent was upheld as the assessee could not rebut the authorities' findings.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not valid as the Assessing Officer failed to record the required satisfaction. However, the addition for cash rent was upheld as the assessee could not rebut the authorities' findings.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of three comparable companies from the transfer pricing analysis. For the Section 14A disallowance, it held that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year in question but allowed an ad-hoc disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxing the annual value of unsold stock-in-trade was debatable and that the deeming provisions for such taxation were applicable prospectively from AY 2018-19. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order was not valid.
The Tribunal upheld the addition on interest on loans to the associated enterprise. For cash expenses, the disallowance was restricted to 5% from 10%. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment proceedings were not concluded satisfactorily, particularly concerning the verification of unsecured loans and partner's capital contributions. The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted a thorough inquiry, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent company is invalid and bad in law. Since the assessee had duly intimated the AO about the amalgamation, the AO's action of proceeding against the defunct entity was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had relied on judicial decisions and the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) had passed a reasoned order allowing the deduction after verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. No justification was found for condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the share premium received was a capital receipt and not income. It also noted that the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act for taxing share premium in excess of fair market value were not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of guarantee commission in the assessee's own case has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee in preceding assessment years. Therefore, there was no reason to take a divergent view.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the assessee's cross-objections.
The Tribunal found that the assessee faced difficulty in readily providing evidence for the nexus between the loan obtained and advances provided. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment for AY 2014-15 was not finalized, the claim for carry forward of losses could not be definitively denied. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the finalization of the AY 2014-15 assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment for AY 2014-15 was not finalized, the claim for carry forward of losses could not be definitively denied. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the finalization of the AY 2014-15 assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment for AY 2014-15 was not finalized, the claim for carry forward of losses could not be definitively denied. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the finalization of the AY 2014-15 assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. It held that interest earned on fixed deposits made for obtaining bank guarantees for projects is a capital receipt and should be reduced from project cost, not taxed as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not furnishing the tax audit report, as the auditor, despite preparing statutory accounts, failed to file the tax audit report. The Tribunal noted that the non-filing was not beneficial to the assessee as it resulted in the loss not being carried forward.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment for AY 2014-15 was not finalized, the claim for carry forward of losses could not be definitively denied. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the finalization of the AY 2014-15 assessment.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition to income is made on an estimated basis. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the assessee was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was an assignment of a right which was not certain and subject to future outcomes, not a completed transfer. Therefore, it did not constitute a capital gain. The Tribunal also upheld the deduction of bank guarantee commission as it was inextricably linked to interest income.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified as the genuineness and creditworthiness of M/s. Basant Marketing Pvt. Ltd. had been accepted by the ITAT and CIT(A) in previous assessments. The failure to produce the party before the AO was not sufficient reason for the addition.
The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the issues raised by the PCIT fell within the scope of the limited scrutiny undertaken by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order for fresh examination.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions made under section 153C due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Interest under sections 234B and 234C was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that additions could not be made under section 153C without incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions could not be made under section 153C without incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were directed to be deleted.