Loading ITAT cases…
272 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, effective from AY 2015-16, should be applied. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not sustainable if no exempt income was earned or received during the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the AO had already made a disallowance on the interest expenditure issue, making the PCIT's revision on this ground unsustainable. Furthermore, the PCIT failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard on the issue of loans received, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the TPO was not justified in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) as Nil without following prescribed methods. Following a Delhi High Court decision, the matter was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of ALP.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground regarding DTAA benefits, finding it a legal issue with facts on record. It remitted the issue to the AO to consider the DTAA benefits in light of a similar coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, effective from AY 2015-16, should be applied. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not sustainable if no exempt income was earned or received during the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had asked for a remand report from the National E-Assessment Centre instead of the jurisdictional AO. Since the additional evidence submitted by the assessee was not verified by the AO and there was no proper remand report, the issue needed to be verified afresh.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without affording adequate opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and the CIT(E)'s rejection due to non-compliance, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case and evidence. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that interest on income tax refund is not part of the assessee's business activity and therefore should be excluded from both the 'profits and gains of business' and 'total revenue from operations' when calculating the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii).
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed without a draft assessment order, even in remand proceedings, is null and void. The requirement of passing a draft assessment order is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not applicable when no exempt income has been earned by the assessee. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in PCIT Central v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition by the ITAT meant the transaction was considered genuine and bonafide. Since the revenue failed to prove the transaction was not genuine or made with intent to evade tax, and there was no reasonable cause, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in refusing to adjudicate the grounds on merit. The fact that a return is taken up for scrutiny does not prevent an assessee from challenging adjustments made in a section 143(1) intimation.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed without a draft assessment order, even in remand proceedings, is null and void. The requirement of passing a draft assessment order is mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the TPO/AO cannot question the commercial wisdom of the assessee or disallow expenditure if it is for business purposes. The TPO's role is limited to determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of international transactions, not the allowability of expenditure. The Tribunal found that the TPO/AO had not demonstrated that the payment made to the AE was not at ALP.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause and condoned it. It also noted that there could be genuine reasons for non-appearance and non-submission of details.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing necessary details. The AO had failed to conduct independent inquiries and relied solely on third-party information. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A) regarding the benefit of indexation on stamp duty and registration charges for LTCG.
The Tribunal held that daily overseas allowances paid to employees are in the nature of reimbursement of expenses incurred during business trips and are exempt under Section 10(14)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, there was no requirement to deduct tax at source.
The Third Member, agreeing with the Accountant Member, held that the impugned addition under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act was liable to be deleted. Consequently, the majority opinion favored the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's bonafide belief that their AR had filed it. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the VAT refund written off in AY 2012-13 was subsequently offered for taxation in AY 2015-16, thus avoiding double taxation.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest deduction on the Surat property to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish relevant documents. The claims for interest deduction on unsecured loans were dismissed due to the failure to prove the nexus with income from other sources.