Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that Accentia Technologies Ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparables due to its involvement in mergers and acquisitions, which impacted its financial results. The Tribunal followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench on this matter.
The Tribunal held that the DRP erred in allowing adjustments for raw material cost changes, as these were considered normal business fluctuations. However, the issue of capacity utilization was remitted back to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal also directed the exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd. from comparables in the ITES segment and ordered a fresh analysis of comparables for that segment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to interest on NPAs, amortisation of premium on government securities, and directed the AO to allow deduction for provisions for NPAs under Section 36(1)(viia). The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and the assessee's consistent accounting practices.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards seed development cost is revenue in nature and therefore entirely allowable. This decision followed the Tribunal's own consistent view in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding depreciation on goodwill. Since this was a new issue, it was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as per law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for carry forward of loss from a non-eligible unit should be allowed without setting off profits of the eligible unit. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 10A without setting off unabsorbed depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the later judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Yokogawa India Ltd. should be followed, which allows deduction under Section 10A without setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Grounds B and C were set aside for adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of several companies from the list of comparables and remitted the comparability of one company back to the TPO. It also directed that the software expenditure issue be re-examined by the AO.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred on the purchase of application software should be treated as revenue expenditure, following a precedent from the Karnataka High Court. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 79 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies only to business losses and not to unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, the assessee is eligible to carry forward and set off unabsorbed depreciation.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to Section 80JJAA as it was not based on the AO's reasoning. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on additional depreciation, relying on a High Court ruling. The issue of provision for warranty was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency in the formula for Section 10A deduction. This ensures no absurd results and upholds the legislative intent of incentivizing exports.
The Tribunal held that the DRP was justified in assuming jurisdiction under Section 154 as it was a case of non-consideration of material on record, which constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction to exclude certain selling expenses from AMP expenditure and allowed the provision for warranty as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on differences between Form 16A and books of account without corroborative evidence. The entire difference cannot be taxed; only the income portion is taxable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's method of apportioning common expenditure based on turnover was acceptable and reasonable, as supported by Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that the DRP was justified in assuming jurisdiction under Section 154 as it was a case of non-consideration of material on record, which constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction to exclude certain selling expenses from AMP expenditure and allowed the provision for warranty as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the appeal was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT instructions. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of feeding, screening, dozing, and loading iron ore, as evidenced by bills raised on a tonnage basis for production, constitute manufacturing or production. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation.
The Tribunal held that since the provisions were reversed in the next accounting year, it indicates that no income had accrued to the payees. Therefore, there was no liability to deduct TDS merely on the basis of year-end provisions.