Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) were applicable as the shares were allotted in the relevant assessment year. Regarding the valuation, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the valuation report, ensuring the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method is followed and not changed, and that projections are based on data available at the time of valuation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not made a factual finding on whether incriminating material was found during the search. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after recording this factual finding.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not made a factual finding on whether incriminating material was found during the search. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after recording this factual finding.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the seized materials and statements, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that there was no specific finding by the DRP on the factual aspect of whether the secondment issue was involved. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and DRP and restored the matter to the DRP for a fresh decision after deciding the factual aspect of secondment.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 26Q should be counted from the date of TDS payment, not the deduction date. Consequently, the late fee should be calculated for 12 days only.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that expenses reduced from export turnover must also be reduced from total turnover for Section 10A/10AA deduction, following the Supreme Court. It further held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against profits of Section 10A/10AA units, and expenses on buy-back of shares are allowable as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's reasoning for rejecting foreign AEs as tested parties was flawed. It found that if the assessee's functions are more complex, using foreign AEs as tested parties, as done by the assessee, is appropriate. The Tribunal also noted that the 5% markup paid by the assessee was within the permissible limit under the unamended Section 92C(2) for the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision. This decision was to be made simultaneously with the decision for AY 2008-09, or in line with the final decision for AY 2008-09 if already decided.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies (Acropetal, Accentia, ICRA Online, Jeevan Scientific) due to functional dissimilarity or lack of segmental data. It also restored the issue of turnover filter to the AO for re-examination of other comparables.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of cost allocation for international transactions to the DRP for verification. It also remanded the issue of employee PF contribution to the AO to check if it was paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to move for recall if the scheme filing is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that expenses reduced from export turnover must also be reduced from total turnover for Section 10A/10AA deduction, following the Supreme Court. It further held that brought forward losses cannot be set off against profits of Section 10A/10AA units, and expenses on buy-back of shares are allowable as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not made a factual finding on whether incriminating material was found during the search. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after recording this factual finding.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's reasoning for rejecting foreign AEs as tested parties was flawed. It found that if the assessee's functions are more complex, using foreign AEs as tested parties, as done by the assessee, is appropriate. The Tribunal also noted that the 5% markup paid by the assessee was within the permissible limit under the unamended Section 92C(2) for the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. K.G. Rukminiyamma, which allowed exemption for multiple flats received in a joint development, is applicable. The amendment restricting the claim to one residential unit is not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending as the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, they were not interested in prosecuting the pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, they were not interested in prosecuting the pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be withdrawn and dismissed them as withdrawn. Regarding the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the revenue's grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to pursue resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to pursue resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if needed.
The Tribunal found that the sale deed indicated other legal heirs also had a share in the property, which was not fully considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the actual share received by the assessees and to re-examine the Section 54F claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by following the principles of substantial justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal found that the sale deed indicated other legal heirs also had a share in the property, which was not fully considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of the actual share received by the assessees and to re-examine the Section 54F claim.
The Tribunal found that the factual details regarding the source of funds for investments and the actual expenses related to exempt income required further examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. No purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending.
The ITAT held that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Since no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to conduct proper inquiries regarding the house property income made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The revision order by the Principal CIT was therefore justified.
The Tribunal held that the repair expenses were for spare parts that could not function independently and thus were revenue in nature. For the other disallowances, the Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the transfer pricing adjustments, agreeing that the management and license fees should be aggregated and that the assessee's margins were indeed higher than comparable entities. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance for delayed ESI payment, following a High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempted income earned. The CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance to this extent.
The Tribunal found that the factual details regarding the source of funds for investments and the actual expenses related to exempt income required further examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the factual details regarding the source of funds for investments and the actual expenses related to exempt income required further examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the transfer pricing adjustments, agreeing that the management and license fees should be aggregated and that the assessee's margins were indeed higher than comparable entities. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance for delayed ESI payment, following a High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Since the assessee had suo moto disallowed Rs. 3,30,421, which was more than the exempt income of Rs. 15,431, the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 3,30,421.
The Tribunal noted that since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, they were not interested in prosecuting the pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that a notice under section 143(2) must be issued within six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. Since the notice was issued beyond this period, it was considered invalid.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. For the assessee's appeal, it upheld the disallowance of interest on taxes and interest to MSMEs, following previous decisions. However, it directed the AO to delete the disallowance of provisions for bad and doubtful debts, following a High Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that for a pure distributor without value addition, the Resale Price Method (RPM) is generally the most appropriate method. It also directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies for the ITES segment and remanded the issue of other potential comparables for fresh examination.
The Tribunal remanded both issues back to the CIT(A). For the unproved liability, the CIT(A) was directed to provide the remand report to the assessee and decide on merits after hearing them. For speculative losses, the CIT(A) was directed to reconsider in light of CBDT Circular No. 46/2009.
The Tribunal noted that since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, they were not interested in prosecuting the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. For the assessee's appeal, it upheld the disallowance of interest on taxes and interest to MSMEs, following previous decisions. However, it directed the AO to delete the disallowance of provisions for bad and doubtful debts, following a High Court judgment.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose since the assessee had already initiated the dispute settlement process. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to approach the tribunal for recall of the order under Section 254(2) of the IT Act if they decided to opt out of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme.
The Tribunal noted that since the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the appeal would be withdrawn in due course. Keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.