Loading ITAT cases…
293 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal noted that the proceedings were finalized ex-parte at both lower levels and the facts were not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing, considering the assessee's health conditions.
The Tribunal held that unclaimed VAT written off is part of the purchase cost and allowable as an expense, and Section 43B is not applicable. It also held that PF contribution on behalf of contractual labour, borne by the assessee as a deemed employer, is a business expense and not subject to the 27% ceiling under Rule 87.
The Tribunal acknowledged the errors pointed out by the assessee and issued a corrigendum. The assessment order was quashed as it was passed in the case of a non-existing entity, and the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the provision for performance warranty should be allowed as a deduction based on past data, and directed the AO to recompute the adjustment. For corporate guarantee, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the ALP by applying a rate of 0.5%.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the loss claim was not justified. The loss from commodity transactions was ascertainable from authentic documents provided by the broker, and the reliance on Section 44AD by the authorities below was misplaced.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A) and that the matter was not examined. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not claimed the purchase of assets as application of income, but only depreciation. Therefore, Section 11(6) was not applicable, and depreciation and loss on sale of assets should be allowed as application of income.
The Tribunal acknowledged the errors pointed out by the assessee and issued a corrigendum. The assessment order was quashed as it was passed in the case of a non-existing entity, and the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's income is indeed exempt. However, due to improper substantiation of the claim before the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of demurrage charges and reimbursement of salary to seconded employees was incorrect, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. However, the assessee's claim for a refund of excess DDT was dismissed, as DTAA benefits do not apply to DDT paid by a domestic company under Section 115-O, citing Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a conduit and the funds ultimately belonged to M/s Trimax IT Infrastructure and Services Limited. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable against the conduit company.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of demurrage charges and reimbursement of salary to seconded employees was incorrect, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. However, the assessee's claim for a refund of excess DDT was dismissed, as DTAA benefits do not apply to DDT paid by a domestic company under Section 115-O, citing Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) was required to pass a reasoned order even if the assessee did not appear or make submissions on merit. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that I-Gate Global Solutions Limited cannot be accepted as a comparable for benchmarking the ITeS segment due to the non-availability of segmental data. The Assessing Officer/TPO is directed to exclude it and re-compute the ALP.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient and bona fide reasons. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be due to bonafide reasons. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, as the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a conduit and the funds ultimately belonged to M/s Trimax IT Infrastructure and Services Limited. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable against the conduit company.
The Tribunal held that the period of ten years for Section 10A deduction begins from the assessment year the undertaking starts manufacturing, not when services commence. It also addressed the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation and the applicability of Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(8) and (10).
The Tribunal held that the period of ten years for Section 10A deduction begins from the assessment year the undertaking starts manufacturing, not when services commence. It also addressed the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation and the applicability of Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(8) and (10).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions. The AO had not pointed out specific deficiencies in the bills and vouchers, and the CIT(A)'s analysis regarding the increase in expenses and verification of expenses was found to be reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the period of ten years for Section 10A deduction begins from the assessment year the undertaking starts manufacturing, not when services commence. It also addressed the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation and the applicability of Section 10A(7) read with Section 80IA(8) and (10).
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to strike off the irrelevant charges, indicating a lack of application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a conduit and the funds ultimately belonged to M/s Trimax IT Infrastructure and Services Limited. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable against the conduit company.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act is not permissible for deduction. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing the lender's financial statements, confirming the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal found that the lender had sufficient own funds to advance the loan, and the CIT(A)'s reasoning was based on surmises.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed both the original and revised returns of income, along with the necessary Form 67 for claiming foreign tax credit, within the extended statutory time limits. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the foreign tax credit.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was justified because the AO's action violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was justified because the AO's action violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and did not adjudicate on the merits. It noted that opportunities were given during the pandemic and that the assessee's paper book was not considered.
The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from earlier years is on par with current year depreciation and can be set off against income under any head, including capital gains. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society with audited accounts, was entitled to the extended due date for filing its return. Therefore, the denial of deduction under Section 80P was incorrect.
The Tribunal is considering the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to share premium and business expenses. The CIT(A) had deleted these additions after calling for a remand report.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to compute its income as per Section 44 read with Rule 2 of Schedule I, and is also eligible for exemptions under Section 10 for dividend income, interest from tax-free bonds, and pension business surplus. The adjustments made by the Assessing Officer were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessee for hardship, shifting, and corpus fund during redevelopment is in the nature of a capital receipt and not taxable. The AO was directed to delete the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee offered the net profit from share trading as business income and did not claim exemption under Section 10(38). The transactions were conducted through a recognized stock exchange and subjected to STT.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing a liberal and pragmatic approach to substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to compute its income as per Section 44 read with Rule 2 of Schedule I, and is also eligible for exemptions under Section 10 for dividend income, interest from tax-free bonds, and pension business surplus. The adjustments made by the Assessing Officer were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed various judicial pronouncements, including those from the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts and its own coordinate benches.
The tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which was not available before the lower authorities. Considering the importance of this evidence, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the interest income was reflected in 26AS after the return was filed and the assessee claimed no interest was charged in its books due to doubtful principal recovery. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that while the revised return might be legally invalid, the AO should have allowed the interest expenditure claimed in the original return when computing the income from house property. The AO had accepted the omitted income but failed to allow the legitimate deduction.