Loading ITAT cases…
70 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that Bodh tree consulting ltd. was functionally similar to the assessee as both were engaged in software development services. Therefore, it could not be excluded from the comparable list.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order and a Delhi High Court judgment, remanded the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to verify if services were rendered by the associated enterprise and if the assessee benefited from them, and also to verify the carry forward of losses.
The Tribunal held that amounts credited in a running current account, even if there were debits and credits, cannot be termed as advances or loans for invoking the provisions of deemed dividend. Therefore, the addition on account of deemed dividend was deleted.
The Tribunal held that amounts credited in a running current account, even if there were debits and credits, cannot be termed as advances or loans for invoking the provisions of deemed dividend. Therefore, the addition on account of deemed dividend was deleted.
The Tribunal held that amounts credited in a running current account, even if there were debits and credits, cannot be termed as advances or loans for invoking the provisions of deemed dividend. Therefore, the addition on account of deemed dividend was deleted.
The Tribunal held that amounts credited in a running current account, even if there were debits and credits, cannot be termed as advances or loans for invoking the provisions of deemed dividend. Therefore, the addition on account of deemed dividend was deleted.
The Tribunal held that amounts credited in a running current account, even if there were debits and credits, cannot be termed as advances or loans for invoking the provisions of deemed dividend. Therefore, the addition on account of deemed dividend was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide factual findings on the additions deleted, thus remanding the quantum appeal for fresh adjudication. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal quashed the penalty as the AO's notice did not specify the exact charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that amounts credited in a running current account, even if there were debits and credits, cannot be termed as advances or loans for invoking the provisions of deemed dividend. Therefore, the addition on account of deemed dividend was deleted.
The Tribunal held that amounts credited in a running current account, even if there were debits and credits, cannot be termed as advances or loans for invoking the provisions of deemed dividend. Therefore, the addition on account of deemed dividend was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude travelling and communication expenses from total turnover for Section 10A deduction, citing jurisdictional High Court precedent. Regarding transfer pricing, the Tribunal excluded several companies from the comparable list based on functional differences, high turnover, and other criteria, ultimately directing the TPO to use a reduced set of comparables.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to recompute the deduction under Section 10A in light of the jurisdictional High Court's judgment. For transfer pricing issues, the matter was restored to the AO/TPO to re-examine the evidence filed by the assessee and re-determine the ALP.
The Tribunal held that amounts credited in a running current account, even if there were debits and credits, cannot be termed as advances or loans for invoking the provisions of deemed dividend. Therefore, the addition on account of deemed dividend was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO/TPO for re-adjudication of capacity utilization and working capital adjustments. This was based on the Tribunal's own decision in the succeeding assessment year and a cited case.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of commission payments and rent paid to related parties. The assessee failed to provide sufficient material to challenge the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the genuineness and reasonableness of these expenses.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated and bad in law as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. It was found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts, and there was no failure to do so, making the proviso to Section 147 inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the factual and legal aspects of the share transactions. Therefore, the order passed under Section 263 by the CIT was within its scope.
The Tribunal held that the quantum of activity cannot be a basis to deny recognition under Section 80G, especially when Section 12A registration is granted and exemption under Section 11 was allowed in scrutiny assessments. The Tribunal directed the CIT to grant recognition under Section 80G.
The Tribunal ruled that no turnover filter should be applied for determining functional comparability, reversing the DRP's direction. It also held that expenses like telecommunication, freight, and insurance incurred in foreign currency attributable to export should be reduced from total turnover when computing deduction under Section 10A, following High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that an unregistered family settlement deed does not create any legal right or interest in property. Therefore, the profit from the sale of the property could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee, but in the hands of the actual owner, the father.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment was based on a 'change of opinion' without new material, making it unsustainable in law. The reassessment was quashed as it was not permissible under the law.
The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay convincing and held that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have condoned it. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowances made by the lower authorities. It found that the assessee had not furnished documentary evidence to substantiate the claimed expenses before any of the authorities.
The Tribunal held that the issue of expiry of the holiday period did not arise as the Assessing Officer himself noted it was the 4th year of claim. Therefore, the AO did not adjudicate on this specific point, and it was not an issue before the Tribunal in the original appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, the valuation of the capital gain was incorrect as it was based on a subsequent cost of construction, not the fair market value of the land as on the date of the JDA.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by remanding issues to the AO for denovo consideration, as the power to remand was removed from CIT(A) after the amendment to Section 251 of the IT Act. The CIT(A) should have called for a remand report and decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies only to Co-operative Banks and not to Credit Co-operative Societies. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2).
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, the valuation of the capital gain was incorrect as it was based on a subsequent cost of construction, not the fair market value of the land as on the date of the JDA.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 271(1)(b) does not empower the AO to impose penalty for delay or failure to file returns in response to a notice under Section 153C. The penalty order lacked legal basis as there was no mention of a notice under Section 142(1) being issued.