Loading ITAT cases…
572 orders · Page 12 of 12
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred after the business is 'set up' but before it 'commences' are deductible. Regarding share premium, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing details of identity, genuineness, and capacity of the share applicants.
The Tribunal noted that the income of Rs.20,17,658/- had already been offered to tax by the assessee, and adding it again would result in double assessment. The addition of Rs.40,353/- was based on a presumption not supported by any material.
The Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was allowable, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was allowable, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). This was granted subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 1,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent adoption of the project completion method, supported by judicial pronouncements, was appropriate. The AO cannot unilaterally change the method of revenue recognition when the assessee has been consistently following a recognized method.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily withdrawn the deduction claim and paid the taxes before the issuance of the notice under section 148. Therefore, there was no concealment of income justifying the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the provisions of Section 54(2) by depositing the sale consideration in the Capital Gains Scheme Account before the due date of filing the return. However, it remanded the issue of whether the new property was under construction and if the extended period for construction applied, to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Assessing Officer (AO) erred in determining the arm's length price without strictly following the prescribed methods under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments for consultancy fees, software license fees, and cost allocations.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily withdrawn the deduction claim and paid the taxes before the issuance of the notice under section 148. Therefore, there was no concealment of income justifying the penalty.
The Tribunal held that TDS credit can only be claimed in the hands of the assessee where the income is offered to tax. Since the penalty income was not taxed in the hands of the assessee, the TDS credit could not be granted. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of granting credit to the IPF Trust was not part of the present appeals.
The Tribunal observed that no one appeared for the assessee and that the legal heirs had not been brought on record despite the assessee's death over five years prior. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable in its current form.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the statements relied upon by the revenue were not subjected to cross-examination and that the documents produced by the assessee were from public offices. Therefore, the addition and disallowance were deleted.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and materials. The primary issue was whether the land was purchased on behalf of the company and if Section 50C was applicable. The assessee argued that the land was acquired for the company, with the company bearing the cost, and possession was transferred via a development agreement. The revenue contended that the land was purchased in the assessee's name, and the consideration was significantly lower than the government valuation, justifying the application of Section 50C. The Tribunal noted the assessee's reliance on precedents where Section 50C was held inapplicable when development rights were transferred or when land was demonstrably held for the company. The revenue cited a case where Section 50C was applied. The Tribunal's decision on the specific application of Section 50C and the determination of capital gains based on actual consideration versus stamp duty valuation was pending further analysis of the evidence and arguments presented, particularly concerning the nature of the transaction and the ownership of the land at the time of the development agreement. The judgment did not explicitly state a final decision on the merits of the addition, indicating a need for further examination or a specific finding on the factual matrix.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee acted bona fide on professional advice. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence and restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the statements relied upon by the revenue were not subjected to cross-examination and that the documents produced by the assessee were from public offices. Therefore, the addition and disallowance were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, following a coordinate bench decision. It was held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an ad hoc estimated basis, especially when the assessee provided details and payments were made through account payee cheques.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Depreciation on Goodwill: The Tribunal held that the 6th proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act, relied upon by the AO, was not applicable to the facts of the case. The proviso deals with the aggregate deduction for depreciation in cases of succession or amalgamation/demerger, limiting it to the deduction allowable to the predecessor. The Tribunal noted that the goodwill was created in the hands of MSM Singapore in 2005 and acquired by the assessee through a demerger effective from 01.04.2014. The Tribunal found that MSM Singapore was not assessed under the Indian Income Tax Act for profits from business, hence no depreciation was claimed by it. The Tribunal restored the issue of depreciation on goodwill to the Assessing Officer for deciding it in accordance with law, taking into account the discussions made, effectively setting aside the AO's calculation of WDV based on notional depreciation. For AY 2015-16, the disallowance of Rs. 13.76 crores was deleted. For AY 2016-17, the depreciation computed by the AO on WDV was set aside and restored to the AO. 2. Provision for Expenses: For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal held that the provision for outstanding expenses should not be disallowed and deleted the disallowance of Rs. 109,46,79,368/-. This decision was applied to AY 2016-17, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 119,54,12,673/-. Regarding the reversal of provision in AY 2016-17, the Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the assessee's plea to reduce total income by Rs. 109,46,79,368/- to avoid double assessment. Since the disallowance for AY 2015-16 was deleted, the Tribunal directed the AO not to reduce the total income by this amount in AY 2016-17, as it was no longer required. The Tribunal also restored issues of self-assessment tax credit, interest under Section 234B, and TDS credit for AY 2016-17 to the AO for verification and decision in accordance with law. The claim for deduction of foreign taxes under Section 37(1) for AY 2016-17 was also restored to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee acted bona fide on professional advice. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence and restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on goodwill acquired through demerger and that the provision for expenses should not have been disallowed. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow TDS credit and examine the claim for deduction of foreign taxes.
The Tribunal held that the interest income was earned from money lending activities and should be assessed as business income, not 'income from other sources'. Furthermore, the expenditure claimed against this income was found to be routine and consistent with previous years, thus directing its allowance. The disallowance under Section 14A was also directed to be computed as per the assessee's submission.