Loading ITAT cases…
227 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are indeed 'co-operative societies' for the purpose of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. However, other conditions for the deduction need to be examined.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal held that keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose as the assessee intended to withdraw it. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue of whether certain expenses should be excluded from export turnover to the AO for fresh examination. It also admitted the assessee's additional claims and restored them to the AO for consideration.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. The withdrawal was based on the assessee opting to settle the disputes under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's intention to settle under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal confirmed the rejection of foreign tax credit as the tax was paid by the father and not the assessee. However, the two additional grounds raised by the assessee were restored to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54 for property purchased outside India, following previous judgments. However, the issue regarding the unutilized capital gains not deposited before the due date requires further examination.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement fails.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It upheld the exclusion of certain companies as comparables and directed rework on foreign currency fluctuations and working capital adjustments. Depreciation disallowance was deleted, and an issue regarding audit adjustments was remanded.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement fails.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of appeals due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It upheld the exclusion of certain companies as comparables and directed rework on foreign currency fluctuations and working capital adjustments. Depreciation disallowance was deleted, and an issue regarding audit adjustments was remanded.
The Tribunal held that telecommunication charges should be excluded from both export and total turnover for Section 10A deduction, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. It also directed the allowance of depreciation on expenses treated as capital in earlier years and remanded the issue of audit adjustments for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's intention to settle the dispute. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act to settle the disputes. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of appeals due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal of appeals due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that working capital adjustment should be granted and remitted the issue of comparable companies to the AO/TPO for re-evaluation. It also directed that TP adjustments should be confined to international transactions and that the benefit of +/- 3% under Section 92C(2) should be considered.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is required to withdraw the appeal as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if necessary.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided to remit several issues back to the AO or CIT(A) for fresh consideration, including disallowances of travelling and business development expenditure, and the addition of interest income. The Tribunal also directed that exempt capital gains should be properly adjudicated for determining loss.
The tribunal noted that the adjustment made in AY 2005-06 would be absorbed by available losses, and even if the appeal was decided in favour of the assessee, the losses would lapse, making the appeal academic.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is required to withdraw the pending appeal as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The assessee's counsel prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided to remit several issues back to the AO or CIT(A) for fresh consideration, including disallowances of travelling and business development expenditure, and the addition of interest income. The Tribunal also directed that exempt capital gains should be properly adjudicated for determining loss.
The tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the subsequent request for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the subsequent request for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the subsequent request for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending given the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the AO's final assessment order was bad in law as it did not conform to the DRP's directions, as mandated by Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded to provide the assessee with another chance to present its case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to apply for recall of the order if they intended to do so.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the assessee's frequent, high-volume share transactions with short holding periods indicated an intention to generate income through trading rather than long-term investment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing similar past instances and the administrative reasons provided by the assessee. The matters were remitted to the lower authorities for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is, in principle, entitled to deduction under Section 54F for investment in multiple flats, provided they produce relevant evidence before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer must then verify the fulfillment of other conditions for granting the deduction.
The Tribunal held that 'stake money' paid to horse owners is not liable for TDS under Section 194B or Section 194BB of the Act. Consequently, no disallowance could be made under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is required to withdraw the pending appeal after filing under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be filing an application to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, it was deemed purposeless to keep the appeal pending. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, fit the definition of 'co-operative society' under Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act and are eligible for deduction under Section 80P. However, a portion of the interest income was disallowed.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of four companies from the transfer pricing comparables, holding that a provision for bonus is an ascertained liability and not contingent. It also restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to 2% of exempt dividend income.
The Tribunal held that Infosys BPO Ltd. and TCS e-Serve Ltd. were not comparable and should be excluded. It also directed a remand for re-computation of working capital adjustment and inclusion of foreign exchange fluctuation gains in operating profits.
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 noted that the Supreme Court judgment in Maxopp Investment Ltd. was delivered after the earlier tribunal orders. It held that Section 14A requires disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income, even if the investment was for managerial control. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court judgment.