Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that Genesys International Corporation Ltd. and ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee wished to restrict its arguments to specific comparables, and other grounds were dismissed as not argued.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme or face issues with it.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move for recall if the Form 1 filed by the assessee is not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding risk adjustment, finding the DRP's direction insufficient. It also allowed the Assessee's appeal concerning the disallowance of lease rentals, directing the AO to allow depreciation as per DRP's earlier directions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Viswas scheme or face issues with it.
The Tribunal held that while the land was recorded as agricultural in revenue records, the surrounding circumstances, including the sale price and lack of evidence of actual agricultural operations, indicated it was not genuinely agricultural land. Therefore, the gain on sale was taxable as capital gains.
The Tribunal held that interest and other borrowing costs are generally not included in the cost of inventories as per Accounting Standard 2. The assessee was justified in treating the interest as a period cost and debiting it to the profit and loss account.
The Tribunal held that Section 50D of the Income Tax Act is applicable as the cost of future construction could not be determined at the time of transfer. Therefore, the guidance value of the land should be adopted as the full value of consideration.
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 Tribunal held that independent agreements between the assessee and its clients need to be verified to ascertain the income that accrued during the year. The assessee was directed to file all such agreements for verification.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies in the software development services segment and one comparable company in the marketing and sales support services segment. The TPO was instructed to recompute the ALP and allow working capital adjustments.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding risk adjustment, finding the DRP's direction insufficient. It also allowed the Assessee's appeal concerning the disallowance of lease rentals, directing the AO to allow depreciation as per DRP's earlier directions.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, directing that the assessee be given an opportunity for cross-examination of concerned parties. Interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D was considered consequential.
The Tribunal noted that the assesses had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and would be withdrawing their appeals. Therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending.
The Tribunal noted that the assesses had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and would be withdrawing their appeals. Therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the appeals pending.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the financial statements and income computation statements of earlier years to verify if the waived interest expenditure was disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence, including confirmation letters from past presidents and member borrowers, was significant and needed to be admitted for a fresh examination. The veracity of the assessee's explanation regarding temporary parking of society funds needed to be verified.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to move for recall of the order if the Form 1 filed by the assessee was not accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT cannot direct the AO to make an addition in 263 proceedings, but can only direct adjudication of the issue. The AO violated principles of natural justice by making an addition without issuing notice to the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remand the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination. This correction was made to ensure clarity and adherence to legal parameters.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. Regarding the assessee's cross-objection, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the facts and therefore set aside the order to be adjudicated afresh.
The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) needs to be re-examined by the AO. The assessee must provide a certificate from the RBI and evidence regarding its business not being akin to a cooperative bank.
The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempted income earned by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the disallowance accordingly.