Loading ITAT cases…
432 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal held that the provision created by the assessee for the impugned assessment year was ascertained and justified, as the assessee was aware of the balance demand before finalizing accounts. Therefore, it could not be treated as an ad-hoc provision.
The Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2014-15, the un-amended provisions of Section 11(2) and Rule 17 apply, meaning there was no strict statutory time limit for filing Form 10. Filing Form 10 before the completion of assessment proceedings constitutes substantial compliance.
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 followed judicial precedents from the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts, which held that cooperative banks continue to be cooperative societies for the purpose of this deduction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the issues back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with evidence, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Ltd. applies retrospectively, meaning delayed deposits of employee contributions to PF/ESI are disallowable. Therefore, the addition made under Section 143(1) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's grounds of appeal and potential reasons for non-appearance. Principles of natural justice necessitate providing another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2022, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005, includes 'cess' under the ambit of 'tax', making it non-deductible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to TDS credit as the capital gains were taxed in the HUF's hands and the individual had not claimed the TDS credit. The AO was directed to allow the TDS credit after verification.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the entire disputed issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal held that the one-time entry fee for individual club membership is not an allowable business expenditure, as it is considered a capital expenditure and provides personal benefit. Recurring expenses for entertaining guests might be allowable, but not the initial membership fee.
The Tribunal held that belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC beyond the due date specified under the relevant Acts, even if paid before the filing of the return, is not an allowable deduction. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that since sales made from these purchases were accepted as genuine, the entire purchases could not be treated as non-genuine. It directed that only the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases should be estimated and brought to tax.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, stating that the TPO erred in cherry-picking months. The final product of the non-eligible unit served as raw material for the eligible unit at an arm's length price.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning the disallowance of professional fees paid to non-residents, following the principle of consistency with prior decisions. Similarly, grounds related to payments to KPMG Switzerland were also dismissed.
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the set-off of losses from the merged State Bank of Saurashtra after verification. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the provision for Employee Stock Purchase Scheme, following previous precedents.
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the set-off of losses from the merged State Bank of Saurashtra after verification. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the provision for Employee Stock Purchase Scheme, following previous precedents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's explanation and Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal allowed the exemption under Section 54F, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling that the date of possession after full payment is the relevant date for purchase.
The tribunal held that the TPO's method of substituting actual financial results for projected ones in the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) valuation was incorrect. For the sale of shares of QNPL, the tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-compute the ALP based on the DCF valuation report after verification, allowing Ground No. 2 partly. For the purchase of SIPL shares, the tribunal held that no adjustment could be made to the cost of purchase, allowing Ground No. 4 partly.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, held that the addition should be restricted to the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases. The AO was directed to restrict the addition to 5% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the transfer pricing adjustment based solely on deficiencies in the valuation report. The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was deemed appropriate, and the assessee's determined ALP was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 139(4) and 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, introduced by the Finance Act, 2016, were not intended to be retrospective. Therefore, the assessee's revised return, filed after the original return was belated, could not be considered valid for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration on merits. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also remanded the current issue to the AO to examine the factual aspects and computation of the claimed foreseeable loss.
The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for claiming depreciation under Section 32 of the Act, as ownership and use for business purposes were established through the lease agreement and lease income offered to tax. The CIT(A)'s order allowing depreciation was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not warranted in disallowing the capitalization of interest for the years under consideration as there was no taxable event (like sale of shares) that was adversely affected by this accounting treatment. The capitalization is an accounting treatment with no immediate impact on income offered to tax.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order and restored the appeal to its original number. The issue was then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Checkmate Services case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transactions. The contention of being a conduit company was not accepted as a valid defense against Section 68 additions.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not warranted in disallowing the capitalization of interest for the years under consideration as there was no taxable event (like sale of shares) that was adversely affected by this accounting treatment. The capitalization is an accounting treatment with no immediate impact on income offered to tax.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had remanded the issue back to the AO for verification of TDS credit. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the TDS credit within 90 days.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AY 2018-19 and 2020-21 as not pressed. For AY 2019-20, the issue of double disallowance of expenditure and interest charged under section 115P were restored to the Assessing Officer for examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AY 2018-19 and 2020-21 as not pressed. For AY 2019-20, the issue of double disallowance of expenditure and interest charged under section 115P were restored to the Assessing Officer for examination.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned. It also directed the Assessing Officer to consider the revised computation of income filed by the assessee, including the suo motu disallowance.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AY 2018-19 and 2020-21 as not pressed. For AY 2019-20, the issue of double disallowance of expenditure and interest charged under section 115P were restored to the Assessing Officer for examination.