Loading ITAT cases…
187 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a voluntary statement without corroborative evidence, referencing Supreme Court and CBDT pronouncements. It also found that the notice u/s 148 was issued without proper approval, rendering the assessment bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted to a mark-up on the expenses incurred, as the transaction represented a service provided by the assessee to its AE. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction to compute capital gains on the sale of trees by considering the fair market value as on 01.04.1981, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment should be restricted to a mark-up on the expenses incurred, as the transaction represented a service provided by the assessee to its AE. The Tribunal also upheld the DRP's direction to compute capital gains on the sale of trees by considering the fair market value as on 01.04.1981, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the DRP had already decided that the software expenditure was not capital in nature, and this decision had become final. Therefore, the AO was not competent to re-examine the capital vs. revenue nature of the expenditure while giving effect to the ITAT's order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 121 days, stating that the assessee was pursuing an alternative remedy and that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act exempts co-operative societies from deducting TDS on interest paid to their members. The CIT(A) erred in not considering this exemption and placing the onus on the assessee to prove exemption without proper appreciation of the law.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2008-09 was bad in law as it was done after 4 years without any failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts. The mortgage deed by a flat purchaser was not evidence of transfer by the assessee in AY 2008-09.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order lacked proper application of mind and judicial strength, making it amenable to revision under section 263. The CIT had correctly exercised revisional jurisdiction as the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries and make conscious decisions.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction for credit facilities to members to the Assessing Officer for re-examination in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The issue of interest income from bank deposits was also restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, following a co-ordinate bench's order.
The Tribunal held that the period of holding for the ground floor should be considered from the oral agreement date, making it long-term capital gains. It also ruled that the date of possession of the new flat, not the sale deed registration, should be considered for Section 54 deduction, making it admissible.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was invalid because the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note did not explicitly state that the seized documents indicated undisclosed income, as required by the High Court's ruling. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the proceedings was upheld.
The Tribunal acknowledged that outstanding receivables from an AE can be considered an international transaction requiring transfer pricing adjustment. However, it directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to benchmark the interest rate considering the period of credit and applicable LIBOR rate, and to compute interest only for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed a combined order giving effect to earlier Tribunal orders and the reassessment order, which was incorrect. The Tribunal directed the AO to pass distinct and separate assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that while the notice under Section 148 was dispatched within the limitation period, Section 68 was not applicable as no books of account were maintained. The Tribunal allowed one more opportunity to the assessee to prove the source of cash deposit.
The Tribunal restored the entire case, including the grounds regarding non-service of notice and the merits of the additions, back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order in accordance with the law.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was invalid because the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note did not explicitly state that the seized documents indicated undisclosed income, as required by the High Court's ruling. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the proceedings was upheld.
The Tribunal held that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending as the assessee intended to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the specific plea of the assessee, that the first proviso to section 2(15) does not apply when there is no profit motive, had not been adjudicated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the addition related to accrued interest on standard assets as the assessee had agreed to it. For the interest paid to members, the Tribunal relied on a previous ruling that Section 194A(3)(v) overrides Section 194A(3)(i)(b), but remanded the matter for verification of details.
The Tribunal noted that the builder confirmed receipt of the full sale consideration, including amounts settled through receivables from a third party and supply of cement. Since this crucial evidence was not examined by the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, the assessee's counsel agreed to the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that payments for software use, under End-User License Agreements, do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that payments for software use, under End-User License Agreements, do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS under Section 195.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, the assessee's counsel agreed to the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn due to the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that payments for software use, under End-User License Agreements, do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright. Therefore, the assessee was not liable for TDS under Section 195.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek recall if circumstances warranted.
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 held that the assessee firm was not a shareholder of the company that advanced the funds, and therefore, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not applicable. The issue regarding the validity of the assessment proceedings under section 153C was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired a right to the property on the date of the allotment letter, making the gains LTCG. The case was restored to the AO to examine the eligibility for Section 54 deduction.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee would be moving an application for withdrawal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
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 that the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the assessee prayed for the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The Revenue did not object to this prayer.
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 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that keeping it pending would serve no purpose as the assessee would be required to withdraw it. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if necessary.
The tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Act application. Consequently, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that an upper turnover filter is relevant for determining comparability in transfer pricing, and directed the exclusion of certain companies based on this criterion. It also directed the AO/TPO to grant working capital adjustment and follow the CIT(A)'s directions on corporate tax issues.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal and remanded several issues back to the TPO for fresh consideration. This included re-evaluating the inclusion/exclusion of certain comparable companies and recomputing working capital adjustments.
The Tribunal noted that the issues contested in the appeal have been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd. from the comparable companies list. It also ruled against making a negative working capital adjustment for a captive service provider.
The Tribunal dismissed one appeal as infructuous since the other appeal addressed the enhanced demand. The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing adjustment for the certification service segment to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration, following previous directions. The addition on account of change in revenue recognition method was confirmed against the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The CIT(Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain companies (Infosys Technologies Ltd., Kals Information Systems Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., Eclerx Services Ltd., and Infosys BPO Ltd.) from the comparable list for transfer pricing. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute Section 10A deduction based on the Karnataka High Court's decision in Tata Elxsi Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that a previous appeal for AY 2014-15 had been decided against the assessee, but the higher court had admitted an appeal on substantial questions of law. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision after the High Court's judgment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period and was therefore ultra vires. Consequently, the returned income was accepted as the final assessed income.
The Tribunal dismissed one appeal as infructuous since the other appeal addressed the enhanced demand. The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing adjustment for the certification service segment to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration, following previous directions. The addition on account of change in revenue recognition method was confirmed against the assessee.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of comparability of R Systems International Ltd. for fresh examination. It upheld the exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd. and confirmed the DRP's directions regarding working capital adjustments and Section 10A deductions.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of comparability of R Systems International Ltd. for fresh examination. It upheld the exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd. and confirmed the DRP's directions regarding working capital adjustments and Section 10A deductions.