Loading ITAT cases…
233 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals without going into the merits of the issues. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals without going into the merits of the issues. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., held that the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer. The AO needs to determine the profit component within the excess payment to decide deductibility.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., held that the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer. The AO needs to determine the profit component within the excess payment to decide deductibility.
The Tribunal held that PF contributions made before the due date of filing the return are deductible. It also found no violation of Rule 46A by the CIT(A) in admitting additional evidence. However, the disallowance of sales promotion expenses was remanded for de-novo consideration.
The tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment order. It allowed the deduction for educational cess and depreciation on capital expenditure. Other grounds were either allowed, dismissed, or remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the payments were not doubted and not covered under Section 40A(3), a partial disallowance was justified. The disallowance was restricted to 5% of the labour charges.
The Tribunal found that the genuineness of the payment was not doubted, but the TPO/Assessing Officer did not adequately examine the services rendered and benefits derived. The existence of a service agreement was also disputed. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 54F as the investment in flats was made within the extended period for filing the return of income under Section 139(4). The Tribunal also found that the purchase of adjacent flats on the same floor was permissible and that the transaction was not a sham.
The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded proper satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and that the disallowance was to be worked out as per Rule 8D. Therefore, the AO's action was confirmed.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, citing a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit.
The Tribunal held that the issue of excess cane price paid to sugarcane suppliers is covered by earlier Tribunal orders and set it aside to the Assessing Officer to follow Supreme Court guidelines. Similarly, the issue of concessions in sugar sales was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for determination.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, citing a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit.
The Tribunal held that the incentive payments were tax-neutral as the directors offered the income for taxation, and the tax rates were comparable. It also found that Section 36(1)(ii) was not attracted in this case, following various High Court and Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed. This decision was based on a CBDT circular revising monetary limits for filing appeals.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, citing a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, citing a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, citing a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed. This decision was based on a CBDT circular revising monetary limits for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and refusing additional evidence. Principles of natural justice require that a person should not be condemned unheard.
The Tribunal held that broken period interest is allowable as a deduction, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. The Tribunal also allowed the voluntary retirement payments as a deduction, relying on its previous decision for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's belief that profits from agricultural land sale were exempt, coupled with her being an illiterate agriculturist, constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271F was deleted.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, citing a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, citing a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, citing a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The tax effect in these appeals was below the specified limit.
The Tribunal restored the issue of risk adjustment for software development services to the AO/TPO for fresh computation. For sales support services, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of TSR Darashaw Limited from the comparables list based on a change in its business profile.
The Tribunal held that no service PE was established in India for the transaction of granting the right to render BPO services. The receipt of Rs. 20.18 crore was not taxable in India under Section 9(1)(i) due to the absence of business operations or a PE in India.
The Tribunal held that the surplus from the sale of agricultural land should be treated as capital gains, not business income, as the land met the criteria for agricultural land and was shown as a personal asset. The issue of deemed dividend was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that for deduction under section 35(2AB), the primary requirement is the recognition of the R&D facility by the prescribed authority. The AO's role is to allow the expenditure incurred on R&D as weighted deduction, and prior to 2016 amendments, there was no prescribed procedure for DSIR to quantify expenditure year-on-year.
The Tribunal held that the issue had already been adjudicated in the assessee's own case under Section 263, where the addition was restricted to 4% of the alleged suppressed sales. Therefore, no interference was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the issue had already been adjudicated in the assessee's own case under Section 263, where the addition was restricted to 4% of the alleged suppressed sales. Therefore, no interference was warranted.
The Tribunal held that for builders and developers, income from properties held as stock-in-trade, even if notional rental income is considered, should be treated as business income, not income from house property. Therefore, taxing hypothetical income under Section 23 was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, and CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 do not apply to pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, expenditure on gifts to doctors for marketing and sales promotion is allowable.
The Tribunal considered the written request from the assessee's counsel. In view of the request, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, and CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 do not apply to pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, expenditure on gifts to doctors for marketing and sales promotion is allowable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Totgar's case, stating that the investments were made out of surplus funds received from members and were in line with the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to previous assessment years where the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) was allowed. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from its earlier consistent decisions.
The Tribunal held that the issue of allowability of expenditure related to the abandoned engine factory needed further factual verification by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also noted that the claim for deduction under Section 35AB was identical to a previous year's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and CBDT circulars. Following judicial discipline and earlier precedents, the deduction under Section 80IA(4) was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It found that the Assessing Officer had recorded satisfaction for furnishing inaccurate particulars but levied penalty for concealment of income, which is a defect in the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim that is not sustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that the assessee had concealed particulars of income or filed inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the management fees paid were an allowable and deductible expenditure. The Tribunal found that the assessee had established the availment of services and that the payments were made based on a valid agreement and invoices.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, following a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench. This decision was based on the principle that such excess payments should be decided in light of Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have complied with the Tribunal's earlier directions to grant TDS credit based on the certificates furnished by the assessee. The Revenue's appeal was considered misdirected and against judicial propriety.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, applying the principle of consistency. Since the Revenue had accepted the identical issue for a prior assessment year and did not demonstrate different facts, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked clarity in specifying the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied, leading to ambiguity. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence or reject the assessee's books of account before making additions. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a draft assessment order, as mandated by Section 144C(1) of the Act, rendered the final assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction, even if the assessee had accepted the adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to 10% of the Gross Profit over and above the Gross Profit declared by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to recalculate the addition accordingly.