Loading ITAT cases…
432 orders · Page 4 of 9
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 additions cannot be sustained solely on information received from foreign authorities without supporting evidence. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable as it was based on assumptions and surmises rather than concrete evidence.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment effective from 01/07/2016, the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was not restricted to the amount mentioned in Form 3CL, as the primary requirement was the approval of the research facility by DSIR. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow claims related to education cess on dividend distribution tax and interest under section 234C.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment effective from 01/07/2016, the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was not restricted to the amount mentioned in Form 3CL, as the primary requirement was the approval of the research facility by DSIR. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow claims related to education cess on dividend distribution tax and interest under section 234C.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted in cases of short deduction of TDS, and the correct course of action would be to invoke Section 201. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, directing him to decide afresh whether the gains were capital gains or business income, and consequently, whether the exemption under Section 54EA was admissible.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee do not constitute 'Royalty' under the India-Netherlands DTAA as there was no imparting of know-how or transfer of skill/experience. The fees were considered a pure allocation of actual costs without markup.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 48,79,600/- related to travelling and conveyance expenses, finding that the assessee had maintained separate audited accounts and properly allocated expenses. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal on this issue.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim under Section 158A and disposed of the appeal without awaiting the High Court's decision. The Assessing Officer was directed to apply the final decision of the High Court to the relevant assessment year.
The tribunal dismissed the ground related to delayed PF/ESIC contributions, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The issue regarding the reduction of current year's loss was remanded to the AO for factual verification.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the loss arose in the normal course of business due to employee fraud. However, due to unclarified involvement of other parties, reconciliation differences, and lack of evidence on recoverability, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request for another opportunity and the Revenue's lack of contravention, decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to provide a sufficient opportunity to the assessee for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the refund already granted should be adjusted first against the interest component and then the balance against the tax component, following established precedent. This ensures fair calculation of interest under Section 244A.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in making additions solely based on the statement of one individual without independent verification. The evidence provided by the assessees was considered sufficient to substantiate their business of supplying labour.
The Tribunal held that the refund already granted should be adjusted first against the interest component and then the balance against the tax component, following established precedent. This ensures fair calculation of interest under Section 244A.
The Tribunal held that the refund already granted should be adjusted first against the interest component and then the balance against the tax component, following established precedent. This ensures fair calculation of interest under Section 244A.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in making additions solely based on the statement of one individual without independent verification. The evidence provided by the assessees was considered sufficient to substantiate their business of supplying labour.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in making additions solely based on the statement of one individual without independent verification. The evidence provided by the assessees was considered sufficient to substantiate their business of supplying labour.
The Tribunal held that the refund already granted should be adjusted first against the interest component and then the balance against the tax component, following established precedent. This ensures fair calculation of interest under Section 244A.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the AO failed to strike out the irrelevant limb in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. This defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the refund already granted should be adjusted first against the interest component and then the balance against the tax component, following established precedent. This ensures fair calculation of interest under Section 244A.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 could not be sustained as there was no direct or circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion that the transactions were sham. The assessee's conduct did not fit the modus operandi of tax evasion.
The Tribunal held that the refund already granted should be adjusted first against the interest component and then the balance against the tax component, following established precedent. This ensures fair calculation of interest under Section 244A.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in making additions solely based on the statement of one individual without independent verification. The evidence provided by the assessees was considered sufficient to substantiate their business of supplying labour.
The Tribunal held that the delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, after the statutory due date, is not allowable as a deduction. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in making additions solely based on the statement of one individual without independent verification. The evidence provided by the assessees was considered sufficient to substantiate their business of supplying labour.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in making additions solely based on the statement of one individual without independent verification. The evidence provided by the assessees was considered sufficient to substantiate their business of supplying labour.
The Tribunal held that for a tonnage tax company, special provisions under Chapter XII-G apply, and Sections 28 to 43C are not applicable for computing tonnage tax income. Depreciation is also not separately allowed under this scheme.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order allowing the deduction was not erroneous, as it was based on a plausible view and supported by judicial precedents. The PCIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was therefore not justified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in making additions solely based on the statement of one individual without independent verification. The evidence provided by the assessees was considered sufficient to substantiate their business of supplying labour.
The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was presented, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was presented, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of sales promotion expenses was not a mistake apparent from the record, as the nature of expenses required investigation and was debatable. Therefore, the AO's action under Section 154 was beyond his jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that when sales are not disputed, only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases should be taxed. The AO is directed to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in making additions solely based on the statement of one individual without independent verification. The evidence provided by the assessees was considered sufficient to substantiate their business of supplying labour.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had entered into an APA which covered the periods under appeal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment effective from 01/07/2016, the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was not restricted to the amount mentioned in Form 3CL, as the primary requirement was the approval of the research facility by DSIR. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow claims related to education cess on dividend distribution tax and interest under section 234C.
The Tribunal found the 50% disallowance to be on the higher side, noting no adverse observations regarding the administrative expenses. It directed the disallowance to be restricted to 5% of the aggregate expenses.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment effective from 01/07/2016, the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was not restricted to the amount mentioned in Form 3CL, as the primary requirement was the approval of the research facility by DSIR. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow claims related to education cess on dividend distribution tax and interest under section 234C.
The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was presented, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's business model involved assigning rental receivables to financiers on a non-recourse basis, and the income offered was from this business, not the rental income itself. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal restored the grounds related to gratuity, employee's contribution to welfare funds, and TDS credit back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also admitted additional grounds regarding deduction under Section 80JJAA and remanded them to the Assessing Officer for a decision on whether a fresh claim can be raised before the Tribunal against a 143(1) intimation.