Loading ITAT cases…
420 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal held that the 'Other Method' is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the royalty payment due to the unique nature of the intangibles and lack of reliable comparables under the CUP method. The matter was remanded for fresh examination of the assessee's working based on the 'Other Method'.
The Tribunal held that the impairment loss was an actual write-off and not a provision for diminution in value, thus it should not be added back to book profits. The bad debt claim was not substantiated and the CIT(A)'s deletion was set aside.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to treat interest income earned on fixed deposits as 'Income from Business', following its own previous order. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to treat interest income earned on fixed deposits as 'Income from Business', following its own previous order. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal clarified that the appeals were filed by the Assessing Officer, not the Official Liquidator. It also confirmed that the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer were dismissed as infructuous. The corrigendum also corrected a typo in paragraph 11.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to treat interest income earned on fixed deposits as 'Income from Business', following its own previous order. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal clarified that the appeals were filed by the Assessing Officer, not the Official Liquidator. It also confirmed that the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer were dismissed as infructuous. The corrigendum also corrected a typo in paragraph 11.
The Tribunal held that the distribution revenues received by the assessee do not constitute royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The assessee granted a broadcast reproduction right, not a copyright, which is distinct.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee's adjournment request was not considered.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and dismissed the appeal prematurely. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and upheld by a coordinate bench, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee should be deleted. However, it was directed to be revived if the substantive addition in Shri Praveen Kumar Jain's case is deleted in further appeals.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and upheld by a coordinate bench, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee should be deleted. However, it was directed to be revived if the substantive addition in Shri Praveen Kumar Jain's case is deleted in further appeals.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and upheld by a coordinate bench, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee should be deleted. However, it was directed to be revived if the substantive addition in Shri Praveen Kumar Jain's case is deleted in further appeals.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT's order invoking Section 263 was found to be erroneous as the AO had taken a possible legal view supported by various High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted in the assessee's favor by a prior Tribunal order, the penalty levied on those additions must also fall. The principle 'Sublato Fundamento Credit Opus' (when the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls) was applied.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular mandates that appeals shall not be filed before the ITAT if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment providing a 10% tolerance band in Section 43CA is curative and retrospective. Since the difference between the agreed sale value and the DVO's valuation was less than 10%, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided details of unsecured loan creditors, the utilization of these loans for business purposes, specifically import of goods, was not sufficiently substantiated. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 is sustained to the extent of requiring verification of loan utilization.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification, noting that if no loans were received in the year under consideration, no addition under Section 68 could be made.
The Tribunal held that Section 23(5) of the Income Tax Act, which deals with notional rent on unsold stock, is applicable prospectively from AY 2018-19 and not for AY 2017-18. The issue of deemed rent on the flat given to the company was remitted to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under Section 14A back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination, considering the assessee's fresh claim regarding expenses for earning exempted income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) was vitiated in law as the employee's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) effective from April 1, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) is required to decide appeals on merits even if the assessee is ex-parte.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the appellate order without waiting for the remand report, despite ongoing remand proceedings. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) is required to decide appeals on merits even if the assessee is ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that while co-operative banks may not be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(4), they continue to be co-operative societies. Therefore, interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that while co-operative banks may not be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(4), they continue to be co-operative societies. Therefore, interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and found it to be cogent. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification, noting that if no loans were received in the year under consideration, no addition under Section 68 could be made.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT passed the order under Section 263 against a dead person, as the assessee had expired before the order was passed and this fact was brought to the PCIT's notice. Therefore, the order passed against a dead person is a nullity in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit, including savings from 30-35 years of service, gifts, and bank withdrawals, was plausible. The CIT(A) erred in disbelieving the explanation solely on human probability, as it is common in Indian society for individuals, especially women, to save and keep cash at home.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without proper consideration. For one year, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for delay without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain. For the other year, the CIT(A) denied an adjournment and dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to rebut the adverse material collected by the AO, leading to a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the purchase and sale bills from Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd. were bogus and unreliable. The sale transactions were also considered part of an arranged scheme for bogus losses.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without rejecting the adjournment request or considering the assessee's submissions and documents. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to rebut the adverse material collected by the AO, leading to a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds raised by the assessee on their merits. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without proper consideration. For one year, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for delay without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain. For the other year, the CIT(A) denied an adjournment and dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits.
The Tribunal held that filing multiple appeals against the same order is not permissible. The Revenue could have raised additional grounds in the earlier pending appeal. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue on merits after considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was indeed passed without proper inquiry and verification, making it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had already examined the issue of share premium during both the original and reassessment proceedings. The PCIT failed to substantiate why further inquiry was necessary, and the reassessment order was not erroneous. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not rejected the books of accounts and had relied heavily on a statement without allowing cross-examination. The CIT(A) had gone further by deeming both sales and purchases as bogus. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO for verification of both sale and purchase transactions.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought sufficient material on record to establish that certain interest expenditures were utilized for the specific project in question. Therefore, these issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after verification and affording the assessee an opportunity to present supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that even if purchases are treated as investments, the assessee must explain the source of funds, especially when the bills are found to be not genuine. The Tribunal found contradictions in the assessee's filings regarding the value of jewelry.
The Tribunal, noting that the assessee did not appear and considering the grounds of appeal, decided to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to substantiate their claims. The disputed issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination and decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not rejected the books of accounts and had relied heavily on a statement without allowing cross-examination. The CIT(A) had gone further by deeming both sales and purchases as bogus. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO for verification of both sale and purchase transactions.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to consider the specific nature of the land, its location in a 'Green Zone' with a lower FSI, and the assessee's submitted valuation report. The addition was made without proper investigation or reference to the Department Valuation Officer.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESIS needs to be re-examined by the AO to verify if payments were made within the due dates, considering the specific payment cycle based on client certification. For gratuity, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the revised certificate from the tax auditor clarifying the provision's allowability.
The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., belatedly deposited employees' contribution to PF and ESIC is not an allowable deduction. Section 43B only pertains to the employer's contribution.