Loading ITAT cases…
154 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that certain filters applied by the TPO were not appropriate and that a specific comparable company (Lucid Software Ltd.) should be excluded as it was functionally different. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to Section 80JJAA and foreign exchange fluctuations.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of the assessee and without any request for adjournment, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of the assessee and without any request for adjournment, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of the assessee and without any request for adjournment, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of the assessee and without any request for adjournment, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of the assessee and without any request for adjournment, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that a judgment cannot be applied without comparing the facts of the case on hand with the facts of the cited judgment. It also noted that the authorities below did not discuss whether the assessee actually accepted deposits from the public.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, set aside the order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Tribunal also held that loss on foreign exchange fluctuation due to forward contracts is allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that certain filters applied by the TPO were not appropriate and that a specific comparable company (Lucid Software Ltd.) should be excluded as it was functionally different. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to Section 80JJAA and foreign exchange fluctuations.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that expenses reduced from export turnover must also be reduced from total turnover for Section 10A computation. The revenue's appeal on this point was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had not considered the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to examine and compare the facts of the present case with the Apex Court's judgment and decide afresh.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's sales figures, when including duties and taxes, would reduce the difference between book receipts and Form 26AS. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after the assessee provides a reconciliation.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only applicable for journeys within India and under specific conditions as per Rule 2B. Since the employees travelled outside India or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(5) is only for travel within India and subject to specific conditions like using the shortest route. Since the employees travelled abroad or took circuitous routes, the bank was not justified in not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of the assessee and without any request for adjournment, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO had no basis as the sales tax assessment, which was the foundation for the addition, had been set aside and was pending. Therefore, the modified order of the CIT(A) was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the interest income from deposits made with banks from surplus funds is eligible for exemption under Section 80P. It distinguished the case from a previous judgment where the deposits were considered a liability.
The Tribunal found that while M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra had written off the debt, there was no evidence that the assessee was informed of this write-off. The Tribunal held that the AO should have made further inquiries to ascertain if the assessee was aware of or a party to any settlement leading to the write-off.
The Tribunal held that income from contract receipts should be taxed in the hands of the correct person and not in the hands of multiple individuals. Since the department had already taxed a portion of these receipts in the hands of one individual, similar additions in the assessee's hands were deleted.
The tribunal held that the provision for doubtful debts was not to be considered operating and thus upheld the AO/DRP's decision on that aspect. Regarding the comparable companies, the tribunal restored the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration in light of the Delhi High Court judgment.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) did not properly compare the facts of the present case with the facts of the Supreme Court judgment relied upon. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not a debatable issue in the context of rectification, especially after the introduction of Rule 8D. It also followed the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. that the intention of investment is irrelevant for disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) cannot exceed the actual provision made for bad and doubtful debts, even if the limits prescribed by the Act (7.5% of total income and 10% of rural advances) are higher. The RBI circulars do not override the provisions of the Income Tax Act for allowing deductions.
The Tribunal held that a judgment cannot be applied without comparing the facts of the case on hand with the facts of the cited judgment. It also noted that the authorities below did not discuss whether the assessee actually accepted deposits from the public.