Loading ITAT cases…
152 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that Section 153A cannot be invoked for additions if no incriminating material was found during the search. The assessment proceedings under Section 153A are primarily for undisclosed income found during a search.
The Tribunal held that several companies, including Accentia Technologies Ltd., Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and others, were not functionally comparable to the assessee's ITES business due to extraordinary events or differing business profiles. Therefore, these companies should be excluded from the list of comparables.
The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the AO for FY 2010-11 (AY 2011-12) were time-barred as they were passed after the expiry of 6 years from the end of the financial year. For other assessment years, the orders were found not to be time-barred. On merits, the Tribunal held that the impugned payments were not royalty or fees for included services, and thus the demands under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could not survive.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd. and Killick Agencies & Marketing Ltd. from the comparable list. The issue regarding Hindustan Housing Co. Ltd. and the computation of profit margin for IDC India Ltd. were restored to the AO/TPO for fresh examination. The issue of working capital and risk adjustments was also restored to the AO/TPO.
The ITAT rejected the ground regarding depreciation by respectfully following its earlier order in the assessee's own case. For the interest disallowance, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision based on evidence regarding the SBI lending rate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard by the CIT(Appeals) to establish its claim for depreciation on the renovation expenses. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside and restored for this limited purpose.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40A(3) cannot be made without considering business expediency and exigencies. Since the genuineness of transactions and supplier confirmations were not doubted, and exceptional circumstances for cash payments were explained, the disallowance was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance of TDS in the remand proceedings, which did not originate from the assessment order, was not valid. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's claim was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessees should be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO. The AO should have computed capital gains instead of assessing the entire sale consideration, and the eligibility for Section 54F deduction needs examination.
The Tribunal restored the disputed issues related to non-MAP transactions to the TPO for fresh adjudication. Non-TP issues were also restored to the DRP for a decision on merits, following similar directions.
The Tribunal held that the assessees should be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO. The AO should have computed capital gains instead of assessing the entire sale consideration, and the eligibility for Section 54F deduction needs examination.
The Tribunal directed the inclusion of one comparable company (Akshay Software Technologies Ltd.) as it met the export sales criteria. Another comparable (Spry Resources India Pvt. Ltd.) was set aside for further verification by the AO/TPO. The Tribunal found it unnecessary to adjudicate on another comparable as the margins were within the acceptable range after exclusions.
The Tribunal held that the assessees should be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO. The AO should have computed capital gains instead of assessing the entire sale consideration, and the eligibility for Section 54F deduction needs examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessees should be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO. The AO should have computed capital gains instead of assessing the entire sale consideration, and the eligibility for Section 54F deduction needs examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessees should be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO. The AO should have computed capital gains instead of assessing the entire sale consideration, and the eligibility for Section 54F deduction needs examination.
The Tribunal held that TNMM is the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the ALP of the royalty payment and directed the AO to apply it. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on assets acquired through a slump sale, as the valuation had been accepted in a prior assessment year.
The ITAT held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the revenue cannot file appeals before the Tribunal where the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that TNMM is the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the ALP of the royalty payment and directed the AO to apply it. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on assets acquired through a slump sale, as the valuation had been accepted in a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The matter was remanded to the AO to ascertain the exact quantum of exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the issue of deduction under Section 80P and the treatment of nominal members were subject to judicial interpretation. It referred to previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Court regarding interest income from deposits and the definition of members for the purpose of Section 80P benefits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not examine the applicability of a subsequent Supreme Court decision and also failed to address the AO's view on the assessee being a primary cooperative bank. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Income-tax Department.
The Tribunal held that the additions for the two amounts claimed as opening balances could not be sustained as they were not received in the current year. Furthermore, the addition related to the amount from the spouse was deleted because no specific section was mentioned for the addition, and the assessee had established the creditworthiness of his wife.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee is directed to produce evidence of tax payment, and if established, the appeals should be admitted and decided on merit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that even if the investment of Rs. 70 lakhs was made in April 2009, the addition should have been made in AY 2010-11, not AY 2009-10. Consequently, the addition for interest also could not survive.
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to rework segmental results for Megasoft Ltd. and consider its comparability only for the software development services segment. It also directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables and asked the AO to verify the usage period of assets for depreciation claims.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to uphold principles of natural justice, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Income-tax Department.
The Tribunal found that certain comparables (Acropetal Technologies Ltd., E-Zest Solutions Ltd., E-Infochips Ltd., and ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd.) were not properly examined by the lower authorities regarding their functional comparability and other filters. Therefore, these comparables were restored to the TPO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 143(1), which allowed for disallowance of Section 80IC deduction for belated returns, were effective from AY 2017-18. Furthermore, even if the processing occurred after the amendment's effective date, the proviso requiring intimation of adjustments was not followed.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of three companies (Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Persistent Systems Ltd, and Infosys Ltd) based on the turnover filter, as their turnover was more than ten times that of the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the exclusion of ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd due to its diversified business activities and lack of segmental information.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order to address the inadvertently omitted ground. After considering submissions, it directed the TPO to re-examine the comparable's segmental figures and recompute its margin, setting aside the issue to the AO/TPO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice.
The Tribunal found the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) order to be cryptic and not a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the DRP for a fresh, reasoned decision.
The Tribunal found the facts similar to a previous ITAT ruling where the AO was directed to conduct proper inquiry. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination and inquiry with the payee, after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision on all aspects, acknowledging a lack of clarity on several factual aspects of the present case. The Tribunal noted that Form 3CL had no legal sanctity prior to July 1, 2016.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient breakup of expenses related to earning exempt income. However, the AO did not adequately examine the evidence provided. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee obtained registration under Section 12AA of the Act after the CIT(Appeals) order was passed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found the assessee's argument about double taxation on admitted income and Section 68 additions to be realistic. Considering the additional grounds of appeal and the CIT(A)'s lack of observation on these aspects, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the disallowance. It was held that no disallowance under Section 14A is required when the assessee has not earned any exempt income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee obtained registration under Section 12AA of the Act after the CIT(Appeals) order was passed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO, without any new external material. The AO had previously allowed the deduction under Section 80P after examining the financial statements.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee obtained registration under Section 12AA of the Act after the CIT(Appeals) order was passed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiry regarding the finance lease transactions and the allowability of depreciation, as evidenced by the assessment order and the notice issued under Section 142(1). Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and restored the issues to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice.