Loading ITAT cases…
389 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issue of unexplained jewellery to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on CBDT instructions. Other grounds related to foreign travel, undisclosed sales, and sundry creditors were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that on identical facts for earlier years, it had directed additions at 5% of disputed purchases. Therefore, for the impugned year, the addition should be restricted to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases, estimating profit at that rate. The issues regarding Sections 80D and 80G were remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the supplementary partnership deed, executed in accordance with the original deed's clause allowing modifications, could be given retrospective effect. Therefore, the remuneration paid to partners as per the amended provisions of Section 40(b)(v) of the Act was allowable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the genuineness of the share transactions with documentary evidence, including contract notes, broker confirmations, and bank statements. The purchase and sale prices were found to be in conformity with market rates.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in adding the loan amounts to the assessee's income. It found that the identity of the lender was not doubted and distinguished the case from others where similar additions were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the consideration for the flat was settled at the time of booking, as reflected in the allotment letter. Therefore, the addition under Section 56(2)(x) was not sustainable, and the allotment letter's genuineness was not disproven by the GST reference.
The Tribunal held that the fabrication services did not constitute 'Fees for Technical Services' as defined in the DTAA, as no technical knowledge was 'made available' and no technology was transferred. Therefore, the income was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO had reason to believe income had escaped assessment. However, the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases was modified, directing that the gross profit should be considered in line with genuine purchases.
For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that there was no impediment in segregating capital gains and losses for DTAA benefits, and the CIT's order was set aside. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the CIT exceeded his jurisdiction as the issue was outside the scope of limited scrutiny.
For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that there was no impediment in segregating capital gains and losses for DTAA benefits, and the CIT's order was set aside. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the CIT exceeded his jurisdiction as the issue was outside the scope of limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal held that the date of the allotment letter, not the registration date of the sale agreement, is relevant for determining the property's value under Section 56(2)(x). The allotment letter confers rights of ownership, and subsequent payments and registration are mere formalities.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the loss related to CCDS clients, finding the revenue could not controvert the factual findings. The issue of interest u/s 234B was restored to the AO for re-computation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s revisionary powers, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiries. However, the issue of maintaining separate books of account was left open for the Assessing Officer to decide during the de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed on February 28, 2022, which was beyond the prescribed time limit of January 31, 2022. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the creditworthiness and identity of the lender, and the genuineness of the transaction. The documents provided clearly indicated that the lender had the means to advance the loan, and the Assessing Officer's doubt on creditworthiness was not sufficient to make the addition.
The tribunal held that a fair opportunity of hearing is essential and the assessee did not receive the notices. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the loss related to CCDS clients, finding the revenue could not controvert the factual findings. The issue of interest u/s 234B was restored to the AO for re-computation.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made in the absence of exempt income. It also held that such disallowances cannot be made for computing book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made in the absence of exempt income. It also held that such disallowances cannot be made for computing book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that since Mangesh D. Gaikar admitted to receiving the cash and was taxed on it as unaccounted income, the addition in the hands of the assessee was not justified. The assessee's claim was corroborated by statements from Mangesh D. Gaikar and the assessee's father.
The Tribunal modified the interest rate for transfer pricing adjustments on loans to AE to LIBOR + 300 basis points for most assessment years. For Section 14A disallowances, it directed that the disallowance should not exceed the exempt income. Some issues were restored to the AO for fresh examination, while others were dismissed or allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing necessary details regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2000/-.
The Tribunal held that the discount claimed by the assessee was allowable as it was a legitimate expense in the nature of an opportunity cost for receiving funds early. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided sufficient details and followed an approved accounting method.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction as the AO had conducted due inquiry and his decision not to tax the notional rent on unsold flats was in line with CBDT circulars and the prospective nature of Section 23(5) of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange losses are intrinsically linked to sales and should be considered operating expenses for benchmarking. Provisions for doubtful debts were disallowed as they were not actual write-offs. The claim for set-off of brought forward losses was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation was arbitrary and unjustified as it cherry-picked sale instances and applied an unreasoned growth rate. The sale consideration of the property purchased by the vendor 10 months prior was ignored.
The Tribunal held that grounds related to Section 80JJA deduction were infructuous as an alternative claim under Section 80IA was allowed. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal followed its previous decision for the assessee, restricting the disallowance to Rs. 50,000.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim in principle but restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to verify that the claim for staff gratuity is made only once, when the provision is created.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation was arbitrary and unjustified as it cherry-picked sale instances and applied an unreasoned growth rate. The sale consideration of the property purchased by the vendor 10 months prior was ignored.
The Tribunal held that for CIF (Cost, Insurance, Freight) transactions, the property in goods passes to the buyer at the port of shipment. Since the offshore supplies were made on a CIF basis and the title passed outside India, the income was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal found that while the insurance company misreported the bank from which the payment was made, the assessee had indeed made the payment from their accounts. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's financial records showed sufficient funds for the payment.
The Tribunal held that for CIF (Cost, Insurance, Freight) transactions, the property in goods passes to the buyer at the port of shipment. Since the offshore supplies were made on a CIF basis and the title passed outside India, the income was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was based on a wrong appreciation of facts and was liable to be quashed. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that payments for Microsoft licenses did not constitute royalty as the copyright was not made available. For coordination services, it was found that the assessee merely collected costs for maintaining a service desk for group entities and did not provide services that would attract tax under the treaty.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds for acquiring capital assets is to be treated as cost of acquisition and allowed as a deduction under Section 48. The Tribunal also remanded an issue regarding an escrow account discrepancy back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal allowed the ground related to the opening cash balance, directing the AO to not treat it as income. For the wife's account, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification. The estimation of income from DEPB license sales was directed to be restricted to 8% instead of 10%.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. It also directed the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present submissions and evidence, and to pass a reasoned order.