Loading ITAT cases…
176 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would be withdrawing their appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to move for recall if necessary.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed or pursued. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect and maintainability.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would be withdrawing their appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to move for recall if necessary.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would be withdrawing their appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to move for recall if necessary.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would be withdrawing their appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to move for recall if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that no purpose would be served by keeping it pending since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recall of the order if needed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and would withdraw the appeal. Since no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending, it was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to move for recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the AO and allows for amortization of infrastructure development costs. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination based on the circular.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the AO and allows for amortization of infrastructure development costs. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination based on the circular.
The ITAT held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the revenue cannot file appeals before the Tribunal if the tax effect is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular is binding on the AO and allows for amortization of infrastructure development costs. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination based on the circular.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the AO provided a valid basis for computing the cost of acquisition as per the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was beyond the prescribed time limit of four years. It also noted that the assessee had disclosed material facts in the original assessment, and the AO's failure to verify TDS was not a valid reason for reopening.
The Tribunal held that the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without examining the detailed documentation provided by the assessee. The disallowance was not justified as the assessee had furnished all relevant details and payments were made through banking channels.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not considered all the expenses challenged by the assessee and directed a de novo consideration of the entire disallowance issue. The CIT(Appeals) was instructed to decide the matter afresh after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding carbon credits, upholding the CIT(Appeals)'s decision. However, for the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for de novo consideration, as neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had fully examined the availability of own funds for investments.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of three specific comparable companies from the list used for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). It also instructed the Assessing Officer to re-examine and verify the correctness of the TDS credit claim.
The Tribunal held that the accounting mistake by the accountant in debiting the wrong account does not create any income. Rectification entries can correct the error without impacting the balance of assets and liabilities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and intended to withdraw the appeals. Therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending.
The Tribunal held that DTAA provisions override the Income-tax Act, including Section 206AA, when determining TDS rates for non-residents. Therefore, Section 206AA is not applicable to payments made to non-residents covered by a DTAA.
The tribunal held that DTAA provisions prevail over Section 206AA of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, Section 206AA is not applicable to non-resident entities covered by a DTAA, even if they fail to provide their PAN.
The Tribunal held that DTAA provisions override the Income-tax Act, including Section 206AA, when determining TDS rates for non-residents. Therefore, Section 206AA is not applicable to payments made to non-residents covered by a DTAA.
The tribunal held that DTAA provisions prevail over Section 206AA of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, Section 206AA is not applicable to non-resident entities covered by a DTAA, even if they fail to provide their PAN.
The Tribunal held that the failure to add the seized cash, even on a protective basis, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, the reclassification of bookmaking income from 'Other Sources' to 'Business' did not cause revenue loss, thus the CIT's action on this point was unwarranted.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of several comparable companies based on prior ITAT decisions for functional dissimilarity or lack of segmental data. It also directed the exclusion of three specific companies sought by the assessee and remanded one issue for verification by the AO.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal based on the provisions of Rule 10RA(4) of the Income Tax Rules, which mandates withdrawal of pending appeals for rollback years covered by an APA.