Loading ITAT cases…
190 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies in the transfer pricing analysis and upheld the DRP's decision regarding the exclusion of foreign currency expenses from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction. The issue of TDS credit was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) had a typographical error regarding the date of return filing, but a subsequent valid notice was issued within the limitation period. The Tribunal also found that the Rs. 44 lakh deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme was not utilized for the intended purpose, and the seized Rs. 55 lakh could not be considered for exemption under Section 54F.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission regarding the tax effect being below the threshold. Consequently, the revenue was precluded from pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied 80JJAA deduction solely because employees didn't meet the 300-day criteria in the preceding year, but remanded the issue for verification of the 300-day fulfillment in the current year. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of joint venture loss to the AO for verification of documents and foreign tax treatment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not examine the details of the expenses incurred. Therefore, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that SPV charges and R&R expenses were business expenditures allowable under Section 37(1). It also held that income from carbon credit sales, being a capital receipt, should be excluded from book profit calculation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantial interest-free funds exceeding the investments, and therefore, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted, even if investments were from a common pool.
The Tribunal held that SPV charges and R&R expenses are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1). It also ruled that income from the sale of carbon credits, being a capital receipt, should be excluded from book profit calculation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding its start-up status. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the assessee's claim for exemption.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the pending appeals in due course after filing the Vivad Se Vishwas application. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues raised by the assessee, as they were not part of the Section 263 proceedings. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the contributions to the co-operative education fund were diverted at source by an overriding title, as the assessee had no control over the funds and was statutorily obligated to spend them only for specified purposes. Therefore, these amounts could not be treated as the assessee's income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the pending appeals in due course after filing the Vivad Se Vishwas application. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and would withdraw the appeal in due course. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending served no purpose.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues raised by the assessee, as they were not part of the Section 263 proceedings. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee invested Rs. 1 crore within six months from the date of transfer, and the amendment to section 54EC was prospective. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the full deduction of Rs. 1 crore.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and would withdraw the appeal in due course. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the absence of activities at the time of application cannot be a basis for refusing approval under Section 80G, especially when registration under Section 12AA was granted. The CIT(E)'s reasons for denial were contradictory to the grant of Section 12AA registration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and would withdraw the appeal in due course. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose as the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, following the practice of the Bangalore benches in similar cases. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if needed.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, as per the practice of the Bangalore Benches in such cases. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, following the practice of the Bangalore Benches in such cases. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the contributions to the co-operative education fund were diverted at source by an overriding title, as the assessee had no control over the funds and was statutorily obligated to spend them only for specified purposes. Therefore, these amounts could not be treated as the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was defective. The notice did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, violating the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the contributions to the co-operative education fund were diverted at source by an overriding title, as the assessee had no control over the funds and was statutorily obligated to spend them only for specified purposes. Therefore, these amounts could not be treated as the assessee's income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have taken steps to ascertain if the assessee's activities constituted scientific R&D, especially considering the later recognition from the Ministry of Science and Technology. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for further verification.
The Tribunal restored the case to the AO to examine the assessee's claim for exemption as a start-up company, considering recent government notifications and CBDT circulars. The AO was directed to afford the assessee an opportunity and decide accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a demand notice along with the draft assessment order was contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, rendering the assessment invalid. Regarding royalty, the Tribunal found that the foreign AEs only marketed products and did not exploit any intellectual property or licenses, thus setting aside the transfer pricing adjustment for royalty.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot change the method of valuation adopted by the assessee if it is prescribed under Rule 11UA. The AO can scrutinize the valuation report but must record reasons for not accepting it and cannot arbitrarily change the method. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive assessment in the case of the partner was pending before the CIT(A), the protective assessments in the firm's case should be considered together. The appeals and cross-objections were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision after the partner's case is decided.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the source of funds as withdrawals from a partnership firm, and also proved the source of sources by providing details of compensation received by other partners. The AO's view that the firm was a colorable device was based on surmise, not material evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive assessment in the case of the partner was pending before the CIT(A), the protective assessments in the firm's case should be considered together. The appeals and cross-objections were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision after the partner's case is decided.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive assessment in the case of the partner was pending before the CIT(A), the protective assessments in the firm's case should be considered together. The appeals and cross-objections were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision after the partner's case is decided.
The Tribunal held that the development of computer software is not 'manufacture or production of an article or thing' and thus disallowed additional depreciation. It also declined to admit the ground related to Section 40(a)(i) disallowance as it did not arise from the impugned final assessment order. The issues of MAT credit and interest under Section 234C were restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive assessment in the case of the partner was pending before the CIT(A), the protective assessments in the firm's case should be considered together. The appeals and cross-objections were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision after the partner's case is decided.
The Tribunal held that receipts from the sale of audio and TV rights of a film fall under the category of 'exhibition of films on a commercial basis' as per Rule 9A. Therefore, production expenditure should be allowed as a deduction against these receipts.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and would withdraw the appeal in due course. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending served no purpose.