Loading ITAT cases…
432 orders · Page 3 of 9
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) adjudicated an issue (set-off against Mumbai and Indore units) that was not before him, while failing to adjudicate the issue actually contested by the assessee (correct computation of Chandigarh unit's income). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that lump sum lease premium for long-term lease is not rent under Section 194-I, remanding the issue of additional premium for de novo adjudication. It also held that interest paid to MMRDA is exempt from TDS under Section 194-A.
The Tribunal held that lump sum lease premium for long-term lease is not rent under Section 194-I, but remanded the issue of additional premium for de novo adjudication. It also held that interest paid to MMRDA is exempt from TDS under Section 194-A.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition as no incriminating material was found during the search conducted on the assessee's premises. The addition was based on third-party information and an online portal, which is insufficient without corroborating evidence found during the assessee's search.
The Tribunal held that the addition of deemed dividend was not sustainable as the assessee was not a shareholder of the lender company, relying on established High Court and Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were also quashed due to no escapement of income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for enhanced cost of acquisition should be examined by the AO, as the settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas occurred after the original assessment. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing a deduction claim for AY 2017-18 based on an incorrect assessment of abatement.
The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee is not royalty as it pertains to publicly available information and does not involve copyright or patented articles. Consequently, no income is chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, partly allowed appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2014-15, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The decision was based on the specific facts and evidence presented for each assessment year and ground of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee is not royalty as it pertains to publicly available information and does not involve copyright or patented articles. Consequently, no income is chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, partly allowed appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2014-15, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The decision was based on the specific facts and evidence presented for each assessment year and ground of appeal.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing them to examine the documents provided by the assessee regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders and to consider the submissions about opening balances of loans.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not made a clear finding of fact on whether the assessee was trading in 'derivatives' or 'commodity derivatives'. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. In cases of unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without such material.
The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee is not royalty as it pertains to publicly available information without any copyright or patent usage. Consequently, in the absence of a permanent establishment in India, no income is chargeable to tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's ignorance of the law should not prevent the examination of the claim, especially given Article 265 of the Constitution. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issue was remanded.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) overlooked the CBDT circular which extended the time for filing appeals. The assessee had filed the appeal within this extended period, thus there was no delay. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee is not royalty as it pertains to publicly available information and does not involve copyright or patented articles. Consequently, no income is chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.
The Tribunal held that purchasing an under-construction flat is considered 'construction' for Section 54 purposes. It also ruled that completion of construction within three years of the sale of the original asset is the key factor, not the commencement date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for enhanced cost of acquisition should be examined by the AO, as the settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas occurred after the original assessment. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing a deduction claim for AY 2017-18 based on an incorrect assessment of abatement.
The Tribunal held that DTAAs do not apply to Dividend Distribution Tax paid by a domestic company unless specifically provided for in the treaty. The appeals were partly allowed on other grounds.
The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated as they were based on a change of opinion without new material. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claims for deduction of amalgamation expenses, expenditure on assets not owned by the assessee, and expenses on IPL tickets and meet and greet.
The Tribunal held that payments made to non-doctors for sales promotion expenses cannot be disallowed. It also directed the AO to allow depreciation on royalty expenses. Regarding Ind-AS adjustments, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as dividend income was offered to tax.
The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee is not royalty as it pertains to publicly available information and does not involve copyright or patented articles. Consequently, no income is chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.
The Tribunal held that DTAAs do not apply to Dividend Distribution Tax paid by a domestic company unless specifically provided for in the treaty. The appeals were partly allowed on other grounds.
The Tribunal held that 'jala fittings' are consumable spares with a lifespan of six months to one year, essential for the smooth functioning and protection of manufacturing machinery. Therefore, such expenditure is revenue in nature.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was due to the CIT(A) passing an ex-parte order and the AO's reliance on the statement of a third party without fully considering the assessee's evidence.
The Tribunal held that payments made to non-doctors for sales promotion expenses cannot be disallowed. It also directed the AO to allow depreciation on royalty expenses. Regarding Ind-AS adjustments, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as dividend income was offered to tax.
The Tribunal held that payments made to non-doctors for sales promotion cannot be disallowed. Regarding payments to doctors, the disallowance is to be confirmed based on Supreme Court rulings and amended provisions of Section 37(1). Expenses not related to doctors, like leave behind material and CME, are to be allowed after verification.
The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee is not royalty as it pertains to publicly available information and does not involve copyright or patented articles. Consequently, no income is chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice was bad in law because it failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee for the proposed penalty. Consequently, the penalty levied was vitiated.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was due to the CIT(A) passing an ex-parte order and the AO's reliance on the statement of a third party without fully considering the assessee's evidence.
The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated as they were based on a change of opinion without new material. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claims for deduction of amalgamation expenses, expenditure on assets not owned by the assessee, and expenses on IPL tickets and meet and greet.
The Tribunal held that the CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order as the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiries into offshore services and payments made directly to the head office. However, the CIT's direction to tax offshore payments and deny DTAA benefits was set aside due to violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition. The differences were explained by factors such as service tax, timing differences in income reporting across assessment years, and income from export of services without TDS.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, partly allowed appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2014-15, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The decision was based on the specific facts and evidence presented for each assessment year and ground of appeal.
The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated as they were based on a change of opinion without new material. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claims for deduction of amalgamation expenses, expenditure on assets not owned by the assessee, and expenses on IPL tickets and meet and greet.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits.
The Tribunal held that payments made to non-doctors for sales promotion expenses cannot be disallowed. It also directed the AO to allow depreciation on royalty expenses. Regarding Ind-AS adjustments, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as dividend income was offered to tax.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, partly allowed appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2014-15, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The decision was based on the specific facts and evidence presented for each assessment year and ground of appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits.
The Tribunal held that lump sum lease premium for long-term lease is not rent under Section 194-I, but remanded the issue of additional premium for de novo adjudication. It also held that interest paid to MMRDA is exempt from TDS under Section 194-A.
The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee is not royalty as it pertains to publicly available information and does not involve copyright or patented articles. Consequently, no income is chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.
The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was unearthed regarding the loans, the addition made by the AO was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee is not royalty as it pertains to publicly available information and does not involve copyright or patented articles. Consequently, no income is chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.
The Tribunal held that payments made to non-doctors for sales promotion expenses cannot be disallowed. It also directed the AO to allow depreciation on royalty expenses. Regarding Ind-AS adjustments, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as dividend income was offered to tax.
The Tribunal held that lump sum lease premium for long-term lease is not rent under Section 194-I, but remanded the issue of additional premium for de novo adjudication. It also held that interest paid to MMRDA is exempt from TDS under Section 194-A.
The Tribunal held that payments made to non-doctors for sales promotion expenses cannot be disallowed. It also directed the AO to allow depreciation on royalty expenses. Regarding Ind-AS adjustments, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as dividend income was offered to tax.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The assessment was unabated, and in such cases, additions cannot be made without incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that once the Settlement Commission has passed a conclusive order assessing the amount as income of M/s. MAAD Realtors and Infra Ltd., no such addition can be made in the hands of the assessee, even on a protective basis, as it would amount to double taxation and violate Section 245-I of the Act.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to examine the impact of litigation and tenant occupation on the property's value. The AO is to consider a registered valuer's report or seek comments from the DVO if deemed necessary.