Loading ITAT cases…
432 orders · Page 8 of 9
The Tribunal held that the existence of a DAPE is tax-neutral unless the agent's remuneration is not at arm's length, which was not the AO's case. Following its own prior rulings and the BAPA, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the estimation of profit at 12.5% on bogus purchases was a reasonable view. The Tribunal also found the partial disallowance of expenses to be justified.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the draft assessment order and the final assessment order were also time-barred and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were out of income from scrap business and directed deletion of the addition. Regarding share trading, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s relief, finding no infirmity in the order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentation to support the AO's verification of the foreign exchange contract transactions. The AO's assessment was deemed insufficient without proper inquiry into the nature of the transactions and their nexus with investments.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was indeed passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the subsequent assessment orders, including the draft and final assessment orders, were also quashed as being barred by limitation.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without proper verification. The tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the delay was plausible and that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the DDT is payable at the rate prescribed in Section 115-O of the Act, and not at the rate specified in the DTAA for the non-resident shareholder. The assessee's grounds challenging this were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) allows the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement to be considered if payments were made before the agreement date. It also noted that the difference between the stamp duty value and agreement value was within the 10% tolerance limit.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not warranted if the expenditure is not claimed in the books of account. The Tribunal also noted that if the Assessing Officer did not treat the expenditure as unexplained under Section 69C, a consequent addition under Section 40A(3) is unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was indeed passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the subsequent assessment orders, including the draft and final assessment orders, were also quashed as being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the addition was justified as the seized documents were corroborated by the registered sale agreement and the assessee failed to rebut the presumption of handwriting. The argument regarding project completion method was rejected as it was not raised earlier.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unjustified as the DSIR certificate was subsequently received, and the assessee could not be faulted for bureaucratic delays. The deduction was allowed on the gross expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance made by the AO for expenditure incurred in earning dividend income while computing deduction under section 80M. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not warranted if the expenditure is not claimed in the books of account. The Tribunal also noted that if the Assessing Officer did not treat the expenditure as unexplained under Section 69C, a consequent addition under Section 40A(3) is unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was indeed passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the subsequent assessment orders, including the draft and final assessment orders, were also quashed as being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution towards PF & ESIC, even if paid before the return filing due date, is not an allowable deduction. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Rule 128 does not prescribe denial of foreign tax credit for delay in filing Form 67. Following its own coordinate benches, the Tribunal directed that the foreign tax credit be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, introduced by the Finance Act 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the Assessment Year 2018-19. Since the payments were made before the due date of filing the return, the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not warranted if the expenditure is not claimed in the books of account. The Tribunal also noted that if the Assessing Officer did not treat the expenditure as unexplained under Section 69C, a consequent addition under Section 40A(3) is unjustified.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding deduction under section 80M, following its own precedent where it was held that no presumption could be drawn that borrowed funds were used for investments earning dividend. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning deduction under section 80-IA.
The Tribunal held that Rule 128 does not prescribe denial of foreign tax credit for delay in filing Form 67. Following its own coordinate benches, the Tribunal directed that the foreign tax credit be allowed.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not warranted if the expenditure is not claimed in the books of account. The Tribunal also noted that if the Assessing Officer did not treat the expenditure as unexplained under Section 69C, a consequent addition under Section 40A(3) is unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of Inland Haulage Charges (IHC) should be decided in favor of the assessee, following its own previous decisions. However, issues related to IT support services were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination. Interest charges and penalty proceedings were dismissed.
The Tribunal agreed that there was no nexus between the remuneration and the interest paid on debit balances. However, it restored the matter to the AO to verify the assessee's claim that the withdrawn capital was used to provide a loan to M/s. Khimani Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. for earning interest.
The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy received under the TUF scheme is a capital receipt, even if it was adjusted against interest expenditure in the books of account. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that no penalty could be imposed under Section 270A as there was no misreporting of income by the assessee. The addition made under Section 43CA was also considered unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide a fair opportunity to the assessee to clarify doubts and that the objections were not based on violations of the trust's objects or the conditions of the provisional registration. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when additions are made purely on an estimation basis, especially when the department cannot adduce concrete evidence for penalty imposition. The assessee's acceptance of estimated additional income does not justify a penalty.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding bogus purchases, directing the AO to restrict the disallowance to 3% based on industry norms and previous year's concessions. However, the disallowance of interest on loans was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT applies retrospectively, clarifying that employee's PF contributions paid after the due date are disallowable. The Tribunal also found that the CPC's action was within its jurisdiction, especially since the assessee had not responded to the notice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee withdrew grounds of appeal related to disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and communication/employee costs. The remaining grounds pertain to depreciation on assets acquired and depreciation on shelters.
The Tribunal held that the two adjacent flats purchased by the assessee constituted a single residential house for the purpose of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to exemption on the investment in both flats.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of reimbursement of expenses back to the Transfer Pricing Officer for further substantiation by the assessee. Regarding foreign exchange losses, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to examine the claim afresh after the assessee demonstrates the business nature of the loss.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for working capital adjustment and restored it to the Assessing Officer for consideration. The disallowance of sales and promotion expenses was also restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification regarding recipient disclosure of income.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order had become unenforceable due to the approved insolvency resolution plan, the appeal before the CIT(A) was effectively moot. Following previous decisions in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed without a draft assessment order is invalid. Following previous High Court decisions, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the charter hire charges were not 'Royalty' as the vessel remained under the exclusive control of the assessee. Consequently, the reimbursement of expenses related to these charges were also not taxable as 'Royalty'.
The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy received under the TUF scheme is a capital receipt, even if it was adjusted against interest expenditure in the books of account. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions with M/s. Ganpati Trading Co. For transactions with M/s. A.N. Commodity Broking Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Plasma Delatrade Pvt Ltd., the Tribunal found that the assessee did not pay margin money, and reports indicated these entities were shell companies involved in fake profit/loss arrangements.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, despite the assessee's grounds of appeal. Recognizing the potential for non-appearance due to various reasons and upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to medical reasons and professional exigencies. While dismissing the initial grounds for non-compliance, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the fifth ground as a last opportunity for fair justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to a procedural misinterpretation regarding rectification proceedings. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits of the disallowances.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the issues on merits and had not considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the statement of Shri Mukesh Chokshi, without corroborating evidence and without the opportunity for cross-examination, was insufficient to prove the share transactions were bogus. Relying on previous tribunal decisions with similar facts, the Tribunal found the transactions to be genuine.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices. Considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for purchasing a new house was not accepted, the cash withdrawn from the bank could be considered as a source for the deposits. It was reasoned that 50% of the withdrawn cash might have been used for family maintenance, leaving the other 50% as a potential source for the deposits.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment was validly served via email. However, it found no cogent evidence to prove that the assessee had incurred artificial losses or was a beneficiary of such transactions, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on merits.