Loading ITAT cases…
289 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the VSVS 2020 scheme and therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS scheme and that keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeals as part of the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement process. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for a prior assessment year was decided by restoring the matter to the AO/TPO for a fresh determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-examine the ALP for the group service fees based on the assessee's submissions and appropriate methods.
The Tribunal proposed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee agreed to this proposal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 noted that the assessee intended to withdraw the appeals as part of the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement process. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if they ultimately opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal agreed that the issues could be better appreciated if both the appeal against the assessment order and the appeal against the rectification order were disposed of together. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly examine the documentary evidence for development expenses and the applicability of Section 40A(3). Similarly, the CIT(A) granted relief for land purchase expenses without proper examination of the assessee's claim under Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that carry forward of deficit for charitable trusts is permissible based on established High Court precedents which allow for the adjustment of earlier years' expenses against subsequent years' income on commercial principles.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the Scheme fails.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the assessee had opted for the VSVS 2020 scheme and received Form 3. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, there was no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and would withdraw the appeal in due course. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending served no purpose.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and wished to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that income cannot be taxed more than once in different assessment years, even if voluntarily surrendered. The assessee's claim that the income was received in earlier years and already assessed was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order was barred by limitation because the deduction under Section 80IA was never an issue in prior proceedings. Therefore, the limitation period should be reckoned from the original assessment order, making the rectification order invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the appeal after filing the Vivad Se Vishwas application. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee would withdraw the appeal after the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement process. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and would be moving to withdraw the appeal. Since the necessary applications were filed, the tribunal saw no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee must be engaged in manufacturing, the assets on which additional depreciation is claimed do not necessarily need to be directly used in the manufacturing process. The CIT's direction to verify the use of assets in manufacturing was modified.
The Tribunal has corrected minor errors in its previous order. These corrections clarify the nature of services discussed and the appellate authority involved in the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, they did not wish to prosecute the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal of appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if they opt out of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that proportionate deduction is allowable for units meeting the area criteria, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in a similar case. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's challenge to the DVO's report and the AO's discretion for physical measurements.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on an additional ground related to the disallowance of 'Education Cess' and 'Secondary and Higher Education Cess' as a deduction under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal followed a High Court judgment stating these cesses are not disallowable.
The Tribunal held that the municipal tax valuation is not a correct basis for determining fair market rent under Section 40A(2)(b) and remanded the issue for fresh examination. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D and restricted the disallowance to the amount claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and would withdraw the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeal after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be withdrawing the appeal in due course after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending served no purpose.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order if the settlement under the scheme fails.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the directions given by the ITAT regarding the royalty payment, especially the alternative direction. For the Section 10A deduction issue, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not discuss the jurisdictional issue and considered profits at the entity level instead of the undertaking level.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's exclusion of several companies from the comparable list due to functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental data. However, it directed the inclusion of two companies that were initially excluded by the DRP. The Tribunal also directed the exclusion of two more companies from the assessee's appeal.