Loading ITAT cases…
389 orders · Page 5 of 8
The Tribunal restored the issue of mark-to-market valuation loss on stock-in-trade to the Assessing Officer for verification. The issue of write-off of sundry debtors was also restored to the Assessing Officer for substantiation.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not sustainable as it was based on a 'base note' without obtaining original documents from the bank. The assessee had provided a consent waiver form, which the AO failed to utilize to gather crucial evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not sustainable as it was based on a 'base note' without obtaining original documents from the bank. The assessee had provided a consent waiver form, which the AO failed to utilize to gather crucial evidence.
The Tribunal held that routine administrative support services do not constitute 'fees for technical services' as they do not 'make available' technical knowledge. Reimbursement of expenses at cost was also held to be not taxable as there was no element of income.
The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on staff welfare, miscellaneous, travel, and repairs expenses to 2% of the claimed amount. It directed the deletion of disallowances for foreign exchange loss and legal/professional fees, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient substantiation.
The tribunal held that the authorities below made the addition merely on presumptions and suspicions, disregarding direct evidence. The assessee provided documentation like broker contract notes, share certificates, demat account statements, and bank confirmations.
The Tribunal held that since the AO had not examined the factual aspect of the Rs. 10,00,000/- claim, the CIT(A) could not have decided it without issuing a notice or calling for a remand report. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the receipts were for services rendered, as the invoices clearly indicated offshore sale of equipment. The Tribunal found no clinching evidence to support the AO's claim of services being provided.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer. The tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. It also quashed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) due to a defective notice.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. It also quashed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) due to a defective notice.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have called for a report from the AO to adjudicate the assessee's contention that a similar issue was decided in their favor by the ITAT in earlier years. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the material on record and adjudicated the issues on merit. Section 250(6) requires the CIT(A) to record reasons for their conclusion. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the payments made for advertising and promotional rights did not fall under the definition of royalty as per Article 12(3) of the India-Malaysia DTAA. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order. It was held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the payments made for advertising and promotional rights did not fall under the definition of royalty as per Article 12(3) of the India-Malaysia DTAA. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee regarding the TDS credit. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a defective penalty notice, where the AO fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, vitiates the penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. It also quashed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) due to a defective notice.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, considering the additional evidence and providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications due to procedural lapses in submitting information was not justified. The CIT(E) should have provided proper opportunities to the assessee before rejecting the applications.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications due to procedural lapses in submitting information was not justified. The CIT(E) should have provided proper opportunities to the assessee before rejecting the applications.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the material on record and adjudicated the issues on merit. Section 250(6) requires the CIT(A) to record reasons for their conclusion. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the demand raised for penalty had been extinguished by an NCLT order approving a resolution plan, there was no grievance to adjudicate. Therefore, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the market value of electricity supplied to captive units can be adopted at the rate at which the assessee purchases electricity from the State Electricity Boards (SEBs). The AO's disallowance was deleted, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits. Since the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and the CIT(A) did not provide details of the notices sent, the matter was remanded back.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's explanation for non-compliance, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow the deduction under Section 80IA without allocation of head office expenses, correcting a previous wording that allowed it against gross total income.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the adjustment for intermediaries to ensure it falls within the +/- 5% benefit. For royalty payment, the matter was remanded to the TPO to decide afresh based on subsequent year's acceptance of arm's length price.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's failure to appear before the lower authorities, decided to provide one more opportunity to substantiate the case with evidence. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. It also quashed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) due to a defective notice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the assessee's appeal regarding brokerage expenses, finding that the location of the payee was immaterial. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a 10% markup on reimbursement of expenses paid by an associated enterprise.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) was admissible even for acquired infrastructure, as per the proviso and CBDT circulars. The interpretation of 'on its behalf' was also clarified in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on technical grounds. The issue of business loss set-off was restored to the Assessing Officer for examination on merits.
The Tribunal decided to restore the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was primarily due to the assessee's request to raise additional grounds of appeal, which were not properly signed and had not been considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal found a conflict in the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's grounds of appeal. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeals, citing reasonable cause and the principle of substantial justice. It held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned and that such disallowances cannot be directly imported for calculating book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the fiction of hypothetical independence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) under the tax treaty is only for computing the PE's profit, not the head office's profit. Therefore, interest paid by the Indian branch to overseas branches is not taxable in India as income of the head office.
The Tribunal held that the fiction of hypothetical independence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) under the tax treaty is only for computing the PE's profit, not the head office's profit. Therefore, interest paid by the Indian branch to overseas branches is not taxable in India as income of the head office.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalidly initiated by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the entire reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while co-operative banks may not be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(4), they continue to be co-operative societies. Therefore, interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that while co-operative banks may not be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(4), they continue to be co-operative societies. Therefore, interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the TPO's order dated November 1, 2019, and the subsequent draft assessment order were barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessee was not considered an 'eligible assessee' for the purpose of Section 144C, rendering the final assessment order void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that an Additional CIT/JCIT requires a written order under Section 120(4)(b) to exercise the powers of an Assessing Officer. In the absence of such an order, the assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that an Additional CIT/JCIT requires a written order under Section 120(4)(b) to exercise the powers of an Assessing Officer. In the absence of such an order, the assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the reopening under section 147 was based on a 'change of opinion' as the issues raised in the reasons recorded were already examined and accepted by the AO during the original scrutiny assessment. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeals, citing reasonable cause and the principle of substantial justice. It held that disallowances under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned and that such disallowances cannot be directly imported for calculating book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's order dated 01/11/2019 was barred by limitation as it was passed in violation of Section 92CA(3A) of the Act. Consequently, the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15)(b)(i), rendering the draft and final assessment orders void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were genuine and the accumulation of income was for a valid purpose, invested in prescribed modes. Following a previous identical decision, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to allow the claim.
The Tribunal held that general and administrative expenses are allowable even during a temporary suspension of business, distinguishing it from a permanent closure. Depreciation on assets used in prior business years was also allowed.