Loading ITAT cases…
70 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the donor's sworn affidavit, supported by sale agreements for agricultural land, was sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the cash gifts. The revocation of the gift at a later stage was not relevant to the original transaction.
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 40(a)(ia) is not applicable to the disallowance of depreciation on capital assets. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was therefore not justified.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds regarding the exclusion of comparables. It directed the AO to exclude foreign travel expenditure and foreign exchange loss from both export turnover and total turnover for Section 10A computation. The issue of leave encashment was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude certain companies from the list of comparables based on turnover and other factors. It also remitted the issue of foreign exchange fluctuations back to the TPO for re-examination and directed proper working capital adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's rejection of certain comparables for transfer pricing purposes was not fully justified and remanded one issue back to the TPO for re-adjudication. Regarding Section 10A deduction, the Tribunal followed its own previous decision and directed the AO to re-work the deduction by excluding foreign currency expenses from both export and total turnover.
The Tribunal held that the corporate tax issue regarding Section 10A deduction is covered in favor of the assessee by a Karnataka High Court judgment. For the transfer pricing issue, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the matter should be restored to the TPO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal decided that communication expenses should be excluded from export turnover and total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following a High Court judgment. For transfer pricing, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to recompute the ALP using a reduced set of comparables, similar to a previous ruling.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a reasoned order regarding the TPO's comparable selection. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the TPO for a de novo assessment, with directions to consider adjustments for depreciation and to re-evaluate certain comparables.
The Tribunal held that since the reassessment was initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the proviso to Section 147 was attracted. The Assessing Officer had failed to record reasons that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not furnished all the required information in time, leading to the rejection by the CIT(E). The assessee undertook to furnish the remaining information if the matter was restored.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had properly adjudicated the issues in light of the relevant provisions of law. No infirmity was found in the CIT(Appeals) order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IB as the housing project was approved by the local authority. The excess construction area is a matter for the municipal authorities to address, not a basis for denying the deduction.
The Tribunal held that if a registered partnership deed is filed during the course of assessment proceedings, even after the return of income, the AO should examine it. The assessment should be framed in the status of a firm if the partnership is found to be genuine.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of professional charges needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer in light of amended provisions of Section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance of telephone expenses was reduced.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a reasoned order regarding the TPO's comparable selection. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the TPO for a de novo assessment, with directions to consider adjustments for depreciation and to re-evaluate certain comparables.
The Tribunal held that if a registered partnership deed is filed during the course of assessment proceedings, even after the return of income, the AO should examine it. The assessment should be framed in the status of a firm if the partnership is found to be genuine.
The Tribunal noted that in a succeeding assessment year, the TPO accepted similar payments as valid for day-to-day running costs and licensing, aggregated with manufacturing and trading. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of professional charges needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer in light of amended provisions of Section 40(a)(ia). The disallowance of telephone expenses was reduced.