Loading ITAT cases…
144 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal decided that the disallowance of service charges should be deleted entirely, travelling expenses should be allowed to the extent of 90%, and depreciation on coolers should be allowed entirely. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders on similar issues.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure incurred on the loan for acquiring controlling interest in a company engaged in the same line of business as the assessee is allowable as revenue expenditure. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that such an investment for business expansion is a valid business purpose.
The Tribunal decided that the disallowance of service charges should be deleted entirely, travelling expenses should be allowed to the extent of 90%, and depreciation on coolers should be allowed in entirety. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders for similar issues in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that no capital gains are chargeable in AY 2012-13 on the impugned Joint Development Agreement. The Tribunal noted that the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) only granted the developer the right to enter the property for development and that the owner had only agreed to transfer the property by sale deed in the name of a co-operative society or prospective buyers. Crucially, no actual transfer of land occurred, and the assessee had not received any consideration in AY 2012-13. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had shown Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) in subsequent years as and when consideration was received and had paid tax on it. Therefore, Ground No. 1 was allowed. Regarding the applicability of Section 45(2), the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to demonstrate the conversion of land into stock-in-trade by showing entries in the books of accounts. The assessee admitted to not maintaining books of accounts and that no closing stock was shown in the Profit and Loss account for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14. Consequently, the assessee's claim that the land was converted into stock-in-trade was rejected, and this ground was dismissed. Ground No. 3, concerning double taxation, was deemed academic as LTCG was held not to arise in AY 2012-13. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided that the disallowance of service charges should be deleted entirely, travelling expenses should be allowed to the extent of 90%, and depreciation on coolers should be allowed in entirety. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders for similar issues in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal decided that the disallowance of service charges should be deleted entirely, the disallowance of travelling expenses should be accepted to the extent of 90%, and the disallowance of depreciation on coolers should be deleted entirely. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders on similar issues.
The Tribunal decided that the disallowance of service charges should be deleted entirely, travelling expenses should be allowed to the extent of 90%, and depreciation on coolers should be allowed in entirety. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders for similar issues in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals.
The Tribunal decided that the disallowance of service charges should be deleted entirely, travelling expenses should be allowed to the extent of 90%, and depreciation on coolers should be allowed in entirety. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders for similar issues in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, taking note of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The issues raised were left open for future proceedings.
The Tribunal decided that the disallowance of service charges should be deleted entirely, travelling expenses should be allowed to the extent of 90%, and depreciation on coolers should be allowed in entirety. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders for similar issues in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal decided that the disallowance of service charges should be deleted entirely. Travelling expenses were allowed to the extent of 90%, and depreciation on coolers was allowed in full, based on previous orders and the nature of services rendered.
The Tribunal decided that the disallowance of service charges should be deleted entirely, travelling expenses should be allowed to the extent of 90%, and depreciation on coolers should be allowed in entirety. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders for similar issues in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal decided that the disallowance of service charges should be deleted entirely, travelling expenses should be allowed to the extent of 90%, and depreciation on coolers should be allowed in entirety. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders for similar issues in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) concerning certain PLI computations and comparable selections. The subsidy received by the assessee was held to be a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
The Tribunal held that the Indian subsidiary did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India, following previous precedents. However, it upheld the taxability of the reimbursement amount that included a mark-up, as it was not purely reimbursement.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that interest received on delayed payment of compensation is a revenue receipt exigible to income-tax. The insertion of Section 56(2)(viii) by the Finance Act 2009, effective from 01.04.2010, makes such interest income taxable as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that Internal Resale Price Method (RPM) was appropriate for the trading segment as goods were resold without value addition. For the manufacturing segment, it allowed the inclusion of a comparable company despite its loss in the year under consideration, but disallowed an adjustment for higher customs duty paid by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Indian subsidiary did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India, following previous precedents. However, it upheld the taxability of the reimbursement amount that included a mark-up, as it was not purely reimbursement.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s second order failed to consider the directions of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the issue of the Rs. 1,01,11,934/- receipt was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal upheld the addition for money lending interest, following a previous order. However, it deleted the disallowance of work in progress, stating that since the expenditure was not claimed as a deduction, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect, following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as it did not survive.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the AO's addition was based solely on electricity consumption without considering other business factors and that similar additions had been deleted in previous cases.
The Tribunal held that interest on sticky loans, where the principal itself is doubtful of recovery, cannot be assessed as income. This decision was based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents applicable to cooperative banks.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction issue raised by the assessee regarding the transfer of the case under Section 127 cannot be agitated in assessment proceedings. It also upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA, finding that the assessee failed to disclose the manner in which undisclosed income was derived and substantiate it.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee during the appellate stage was inadmissible as sufficient opportunities were already provided by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also noted that the land ownership was not in the assessee's name, and the valuation report was self-serving.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of general management fees, stating that expenditure incurred before the commencement of business or completion of a project should be capitalized. The principle of consistency was also rejected as each assessment year is distinct.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction issue raised by the assessee regarding the transfer of the case under Section 127 cannot be agitated in assessment proceedings. It also upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA, finding that the assessee failed to disclose the manner in which undisclosed income was derived and substantiate it.
The Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc addition of Rs. 50 lakhs, finding no evidence of suppressed sale receipts or on-money. It partly allowed disallowances for unproved expenses and restored an interest disallowance issue for fresh adjudication. A disallowance under Section 40A(3) was rejected as not pressed, and a Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance was confirmed.
The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify all bills, godown receipts, and stock statements. The assessee is directed to submit all details, and the AO is to provide a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy, intended as an incentive to encourage industrial development, was not a payment to meet the cost of assets. Therefore, Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) was not applicable, and the subsidy should not be deducted from the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes.
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction issue raised by the assessee regarding the transfer of the case under Section 127 cannot be agitated in assessment proceedings. It also upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA, finding that the assessee failed to disclose the manner in which undisclosed income was derived and substantiate it.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order due to improper transfer of jurisdiction. However, on merits, it was held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) was wrongly allowed as the return was filed after the due date, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the objection regarding the transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 cannot be agitated in assessment proceedings. The addition of Rs. 47,12,511/- was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination with additional evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the issue had become academic. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the challenge to the transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 cannot be raised during assessment proceedings, as such proceedings are independent. The additions made on account of unexplained expenditure and investments were confirmed as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the objection regarding the transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 was not maintainable in revision proceedings as the assessee had submitted to the jurisdiction. It also held that information received from the Investigation Wing should have been considered during the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in applying an amended statutory provision with retrospective effect to disregard the assessee's registered valuer's report. The addition made on account of capital gains was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue of excess sugarcane price paid over FRP needs to be re-examined by the AO, distinguishing between payments to members (potential profit distribution) and non-members (Section 40A(2) application). The issue of concessional sugar sales to members was also remitted to the AO for fresh consideration based on Supreme Court guidelines.
The Tribunal held that the objection regarding the transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 was not maintainable in revision proceedings as the assessee had submitted to the jurisdiction. It also held that information received from the Investigation Wing should have been considered during the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153A.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as the AO did not establish a proximate relationship between expenditure and exempt income. For Section 43CA, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO should refer the properties to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for valuation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter remitted back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities, finding that the disclosures were made by an authorized person and were supported by corroborative evidence found during the survey. The Tribunal also cautioned against double additions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte without deciding it on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.