Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 6 lacs as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation or evidence for the land transaction. The claim of double addition was also rejected due to lack of clarity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of Container Freight Station. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the assessee's own case and similar precedents.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order and Supreme Court judgments, remitted the issues of excess cane price and concessional sale of sugar back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of interest under Section 43B was found justified as per the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 6 lacs as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation or evidence for the land transaction. The claim of double addition was also rejected due to lack of clarity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of depreciation. Since the factory was closed and assets were not put to use during the relevant year, depreciation was not allowable.
The Tribunal held that the failure to get accounts audited under Section 44AB, in the context of a cooperative society already audited under state law and receiving grant-in-aid, could constitute a reasonable cause under Section 273B. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's no objection. Since the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order and Supreme Court judgments, remitted the issues of excess cane price and concessional sale of sugar back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of interest under Section 43B was found justified as per the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot levy penalty on charges different from those for which penalty proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the penalty levied was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's no objection. Since the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the disallowance under Section 14A was excessive concerning exempt income. The issue was remanded to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's no objection. Since the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiries into the nature of the transactions and the allowability of bad debts. The transactions were considered speculative, and the bad debts should not have been set off against normal business income.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was justified regarding the difference between agreement and stamp duty values due to lack of verification by the Assessing Officer. However, it found the PCIT's order unjustified concerning the Renewable Energy Certificate income, as it was considered a capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd., remitting the matter to the AO. The AO is to determine the profit component within the excess payment to members and apply Section 40A(2) for non-members.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the assessee's inability to provide required documents due to the lockdown, remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the issue of long-term capital gains to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The issue of dividend addition was also restored to the AO.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's no objection. Since the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the forex filter of 75% applied by the TPO was upheld, and the assessee's argument for a 50% filter was not substantiated. It also directed the exclusion of 'Infobeans Technologies Ltd.' based on functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental data, following a precedent. The issue concerning 'Ingenuity Gaming Pvt. Ltd.' was remitted back to the AO/TPO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's no objection. Since the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's no-objection. Since the dispute was settled under the VSV-20 scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the commission amount was not received by the assessee society but by individuals in their personal capacity, and thus deleted the addition. However, it upheld the disallowance of depreciation on inflated bills as they did not form the actual cost of assets.
The Tribunal held that the commission amount was not received by the assessee society but by individuals in their personal capacity, and thus deleted the addition. However, it upheld the disallowance of depreciation on inflated bills as they did not form the actual cost of assets.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the addition to income is made on an estimate basis. Since the original addition was restricted to 10% by the ITAT, it was considered an estimate.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the addition to income is made on an estimate basis. Since the original addition was restricted to 10% by the ITAT, it was considered an estimate.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt, not revenue, as it was granted to encourage industrial development and employment. Regarding the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-computation, specifying that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the benchmarking analysis and certificates submitted by the assessee regarding import of raw materials. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO/TPO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the definition of FTS in the India-Sweden DTAA was similar to the Act, but the MFN clause could apply if India had a more restricted scope with another OECD country. The Tribunal also noted that reimbursement of expenses, if proven, would not be taxable.
The Tribunal held that mere addition to income does not automatically warrant a penalty for concealment. The reasoning of the CIT(A) for confirming the penalty was found unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of 'Bhilwara Infotechnology Ltd.' and 'Aspire Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.' as comparables for software development services. It also upheld the inclusion of 'One Touch Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.' as a comparable for ITES activities.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt, not revenue, as it was granted to encourage industrial development and employment. Regarding the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-computation, specifying that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of 'Bhilwara Infotechnology Ltd.' and 'Aspire Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.' as comparables for software development services. It also upheld the inclusion of 'One Touch Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.' as a comparable for ITES activities.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the application filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that income from house property is taxed on an accrual basis under the mercantile system, irrespective of actual receipt. Unrealized rent cannot be allowed as a deduction when computing income from house property.
The Tribunal held that the commission amount was not received by the assessee society but by individuals in their personal capacity, and thus deleted the addition. However, it upheld the disallowance of depreciation on inflated bills as they did not form the actual cost of assets.
The Tribunal held that the provision for obsolete stock is allowable in principle, but it needs to be satisfied that the valuation is done based on the principle of cost or market price or net realizable value, whichever is less. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to April 1, 2021, if the employees' contribution to EPF/ESI is deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, it is allowable as a deduction. The disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when the addition to income is made on an estimate basis. Since the original addition was restricted to 10% by the ITAT, it was considered an estimate.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to A.Y. 2021-22, if the employees' contribution to EPF/ESI is deposited before the due date for filing the return of income, it is allowable as a deduction. The disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is pari materia to Section 50C, and the statutory tolerance margin of 10%, though amended later, should be applied retrospectively as it is curative in nature. Therefore, the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the returned income was accepted and there were no additions, there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not pressed/maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous and also dismissed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to raise all grounds in other pending appeals.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to raise all grounds in other pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that since the underlying quantum proceedings were quashed, the penalty levied based on those proceedings had no legal basis. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the right to collect toll qualifies as a commercial right or intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, depreciation is allowable on the capitalized cost of acquiring this right.
The Tribunal held that the right to collect toll qualifies as a commercial right or intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, depreciation is allowable on the capitalized cost of acquiring this right.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, citing the principle of substantial justice. Furthermore, it was held that Section 234E, read with Section 200A, was not applicable for levying fees prior to June 1, 2015.