Loading ITAT cases…
72 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the DRP has jurisdiction to decide issues arising from draft assessment orders passed pursuant to Tribunal directions. It also found that the TPO passed orders without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal set aside the TPO's findings on the most appropriate method and ALP determination for services received, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80IB is not allowable on duty drawback, making the assessment order erroneous. For other incomes, if expenses are incurred, only the net income should be reduced from business profits for 80IB deduction, and the CIT(A) lacked the power to set aside the matter to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had previously quashed the CIT's order under Section 263. Since the foundational order was set aside, the consequential assessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that if section 153(2A) applies to orders passed under section 104, there is no reason why it should not apply to orders passed under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). Therefore, the orders passed by the AO were time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the DRP has jurisdiction to decide issues arising from draft assessment orders passed pursuant to Tribunal directions. It also found that the TPO passed orders without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal set aside the TPO's findings on the most appropriate method and ALP determination for services received, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the DRP has jurisdiction to decide issues arising from draft assessment orders passed pursuant to Tribunal directions. It also found that the TPO passed orders without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal set aside the TPO's findings on the most appropriate method and ALP determination for services received, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 30,01,000 should be treated as explained, considering the miscellaneous income of Rs. 45 lakhs reported by the appellant. Consequently, the penalty levied on the sustained addition was also quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude specific companies from the list of comparables and also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections regarding risk adjustment and other procedural issues.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to controvert the AO's finding that its primary activity was running coaching classes for substantial fees. None of the judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee were found applicable to the facts of the case.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not undertaken any genuine business activity and had no intention to restart, expenses claimed for maintaining its corporate structure were not allowable. Expenses claimed for earning income from other sources were also disallowed as they were not directly related to earning such income.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed, the Assessing Officer's order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 had become infructuous and did not survive.
The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's decision in Tata Elxsi, holding that if an expense is reduced from export turnover, the total turnover also reduces by the same amount. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that interest expenditure on property investment is not allowable against business income if the investment is clearly separated from stock-in-trade in the accounts. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the claim of loss due to forfeiture of share warrants, following a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, directing the application of a 15% related party transaction filter and re-examination of comparables. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error in the validity of the assessment or the direction for a statutory audit. The addition on account of unexplained share application money was also confirmed as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, directing the application of a 15% related party transaction filter and re-examination of comparables. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the deletion was less than Rs. 10 Lacs. Consequently, the appeal was not admitted due to low tax effect as per Board instructions.
The Tribunal allowed the corporate tax issue in favor of the assessee, directing the AO to reduce total turnover by the amount deducted from export turnover. Grounds related to Transfer Pricing were rejected as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the advances were solely for the business purpose of the company. It also ruled that the benefit of setting off against a declared dividend was not available as the company had fully paid the dividend and had not set it off against the advance.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was in default for not remitting TDS on time, the penalty levied by the AO at 5% per month was unreasonable. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to 10% of the unpaid TDS.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P in respect of interest on fixed deposits. This decision followed a previous order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, which in turn followed a jurisdictional High Court judgment.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to make proper compliance before the CIT(Appeals).