Loading ITAT cases…
945 orders · Page 2 of 19
The Tribunal held that international connectivity charges, testing, visa-related expenses, and soft-skills/management training were not taxable in India. Receipts from standardized software were not royalty as no copyright was transferred, and lease rental adjustments were deleted. Interest under section 234B was deleted as tax was deductible at source.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and held that the addition under Section 69 was not sustainable as the investment was made in FY 2014-15, not FY 2018-19. Stamp duty valuation alone is not sufficient for addition under Section 69.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that goodwill is an eligible intangible asset for depreciation, following a previous ruling on the same issue. However, it remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide on the applicability of the 180-day rule for depreciation.
The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.
The Tribunal held that a technical error in selecting a wrong provision should not penalize the assessee, especially when the Finance Act mandates a lower tax rate for companies with turnover below a certain threshold. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision on an identical issue for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had raised valid factual doubts regarding the date of payment. However, the assessee presented additional evidence to support its claim of payment on March 14, 2016. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of this new evidence.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment proceedings under the faceless assessment scheme was in order. However, due to new evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the Section 68 addition, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Section 14A disallowance was also restored for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish a specific nexus between the assessee and any alleged operator or accommodation-entry provider for the penny-stock transactions. Regarding interest expenditure, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion based on commercial expediency.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because additions were confirmed in quantum proceedings, without specific findings of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the issue involved interpretation of statutory provisions and accounting methods, and the assessee had a reasonable basis for its claim.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on the abandoned Bharuch project is allowable as business expenditure. The mere capitalization of expenses as work-in-progress does not convert them into capital expenditure if the project did not materialize and no capital asset came into existence.
The Tribunal held that the amounts reflected in Form 26AS, where tax was deducted, were indeed income of the assessee and should be taxed. However, the Tribunal found that the sales promotion expenses were genuine and had a business nexus, directing the deletion of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the buy-back of own shares did not result in the receipt of 'property' under Section 56(2)(x). It also found that interest-free advances were made from surplus own funds and that the written-off loans arose from a regular lending business.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to dispel the suspicion raised by the AO and establish the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found that the entire transaction of purchasing and selling shares of M/s. Kappac Pharma Limited appeared to be a colourable device to convert unaccounted money into fictitious exempt LTCG to evade taxes. The reasoning was based on several factors: (i) the purchase of shares with undisclosed money, subsequent declaration under IDS, 2016, legalization, refund, and payment by cheque, followed by dematerialization and sale at a significantly higher price, making the transaction appear antedated and colourable. (ii) The transaction failed the test of human probabilities, as no prudent person would invest heavily in a consistently loss-making company, especially when the assessee was a novice. (iii) The assessee failed to dispel the AO's suspicions and withheld the name of the real seller. (iv) The business model of M/s. Kappac Pharma Limited was examined and held by coordinate benches to be a provider of bogus exempt LTCG. (v) The onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction lay with the assessee, which she failed to discharge. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the assessment order passed by the AO was upheld. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval obtained from the PCIT was not in accordance with Section 151(ii) of the Act, as it was issued after the period contemplated under Section 151(i). Consequently, the notice and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition under section 69C could not be sustained solely on the non-response of vendors to notices or their alleged non-filing of returns. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the outcome of the appeal for the previous assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases, considering the established manufacturing activity and accepted sales. The Tribunal found the estimation to be reasonable, taking into account potential savings from grey market procurement.
The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 dated March 25, 2013, was indeed served on the assessee on March 25, 2013. Consequently, the assessment order passed on March 27, 2015, was beyond the prescribed time limit.
The Tribunal held that the donation was made when the institution had valid approval, and subsequent withdrawal of approval does not affect the deduction. The AO's disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence. This was done in the interest of substantial justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued on April 4, 2022, for AY 2015-16, was barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment order and all proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the authorities below, stating that the assessee's failure to disclose income and bank accounts in the original, belatedly filed return, and the subsequent attempt to claim set-offs via a revised computation during assessment, were not permissible under the Act.
The Tribunal held that absence of expenditure does not automatically establish non-genuineness of charitable activities, citing Supreme Court precedents. The CIT's satisfaction should be based on the genuineness of objects and proposed activities, not solely on past expenditure.
The Tribunal held that international connectivity charges, testing, visa-related expenses, and soft-skills/management training were not taxable in India. Receipts from standardized software were not royalty as no copyright was transferred, and lease rental adjustments were deleted. Interest under section 234B was deleted as tax was deductible at source.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence produced by the assessee, which appeared relevant for proper adjudication. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, considering the additional evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal held that international connectivity charges, testing, visa-related expenses, and soft-skills/management training were not taxable in India. Receipts from standardized software were not royalty as no copyright was transferred, and lease rental adjustments were deleted. Interest under section 234B was deleted as tax was deductible at source.
The Tribunal held that BookMyShow did not act as an agent for the assessee in collecting the convenience fee. The fee was for the digital facility provided by BookMyShow to its customers, and the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source on this amount.
The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the Assessing Officer/Joint Commissioner had not provided specific evidence to demonstrate a violation of Section 269SS, which requires a loan or deposit from another person above a certain threshold, accepted otherwise than through specified modes.
The tribunal held that the jewellery constituted undisclosed income under section 271AAB. However, the penalty should be levied at 10% under clause (a) instead of 30% under the residuary clause (c) due to the assessee's admission and subsequent compliance.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of the claim was not voluntary as it was made after the AO's detection. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to offer a bona fide explanation for concealment.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening did not explicitly mention the specific entity (M/s Newera Vinimay Pvt Ltd) from which the assessee received funds. Due to this ambiguity and the lack of clarity on whether the taxed transaction was the same as the one forming the basis of reopening, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the 2016 agreement was a fresh transaction, and the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of prior payments being adjusted. The discrepancies in flat numbers and lack of clear contractual linkage from the earlier builder meant the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were attracted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the genuineness of purchases with invoices, delivery challans, and bank payments. The non-payment of VAT by suppliers alone was insufficient to deem purchases bogus.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish complete evidence regarding the nature of credits and cash deposits. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions.
The Tribunal held that since more than three years had expired from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 should have been obtained from the PCCIT or CCIT as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. The approval by the PCIT was invalid, rendering the notice and subsequent proceedings bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is the legal employer of the deputed personnel and incurs the cost of emoluments, even if recovered from clients. The provision is a beneficial one to encourage employment and should be construed liberally.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction. It found that the political party was involved in a bogus donation scam, and the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that the revised return, filed within the prescribed time, should not be disregarded. The revised return corrected the character of an already disclosed loss, rather than introducing a new claim, and the ratio of the Wipro Ltd. judgment was distinguishable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to demonstrate the company's intrinsic financial strength or rebut the findings regarding the scrip's abnormal behavior. The claim for exempt long-term capital gain was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions as the assessee provided sufficient evidence of discharge of liabilities and genuineness of loans. The Tribunal also found no prejudice caused to the Revenue by the admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that adjudicating the penalty appeal while the underlying quantum proceedings are pending is premature. Therefore, the penalty matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum appeal is decided.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was barred by limitation and fundamentally defective. It was also found that the appellant lacked the locus standi to file the appeal as the impugned order was not against him personally.
The Tribunal held that the penalties were paid in the normal course of business and not for any infraction of law or offense. Therefore, they were allowable as business expenditure, and the penalty under Section 270A was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalties were paid in the normal course of business and not for any infraction of law or offense. Therefore, they were allowable as business expenditure, and the penalty under Section 270A was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.
The Tribunal considered the submission that the appeal was a duplicate and the Revenue did not dispute this. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that international connectivity charges, testing, visa-related expenses, and soft-skills/management training were not taxable in India. Receipts from standardized software were not royalty as no copyright was transferred, and lease rental adjustments were deleted. Interest under section 234B was deleted as tax was deductible at source.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, agreeing that the addition was made on an estimated basis and not on concrete evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars. Reliance was placed on High Court and Supreme Court judgments.