Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal restored the issues of sourcing commission and interest on debentures to the AO/TPO for fresh examination, citing identical issues decided in previous assessment years. The disallowance of sample expenses was confirmed against the assessee.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained a certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, concerning the tax arrears. Consequently, the assessee prayed for the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that adjustments for transfer pricing should only be made for transactions with associated enterprises (AEs) and not with unrelated parties. It also held that foreign exchange gains should be treated as part of operating profit.
The Tribunal held that Section 28(iv) is not applicable to transactions involving money, citing a Supreme Court decision. It also found no material to support the tax authorities' view that the sale agreement was a colourable device.
The Tribunal held that the AO can scrutinize the valuation report but must adhere to the method chosen by the assessee, such as DCF. The AO cannot change the valuation method. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the DCF method, if chosen by the assessee, should be examined by the AO, who can scrutinize the valuation report and determine a fresh valuation using the DCF method, but cannot change the method itself. The matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded the issue of computing long-term capital gains back to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO is to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding.
The Tribunal noted that the applicability of Section 80IA to subsidies depends on the specific scheme under which they are granted. Since the scheme details were not examined by the lower authorities, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that no useful purpose would be served in adjudicating the issue as the Revenue could not recover more than Rs. 1 lakh as per the NCLT order. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as a consequence.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, allowed the ESOP expenditure as it was considered an employee cost and revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow the deduction for education cess, relying on a High Court decision.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, allowed the ESOP expenditure as it was considered an employee cost and revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow the deduction for education cess, relying on a High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has sufficient own funds exceeding the amount of investment and interest-free loans, no disallowance of interest expenditure is warranted. The presumption is that such advances are made from interest-free funds.
The Tribunal restored the issues regarding the exclusion of foreign currency expenses from export and total turnover, and the treatment of unrealized export proceeds, back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination. The issue of foreign tax credit was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal restored the issues regarding the exclusion of foreign currency expenses from export and total turnover, and the treatment of unrealized export proceeds, back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination. The issue of foreign tax credit was restored to the AO.
The tribunal confirmed the deletion of disallowance for interest expenditure, citing excess own funds over investments. However, it directed a lumpsum disallowance of Rs. 15 lakhs out of general expenditure relatable to exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the AO had reason to believe income had escaped assessment. However, on merits, it was found that the JDA and GPA did not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act in the year of execution, as possession was not handed over and the developer was not identified as a transferee.
The Tribunal held that companies with significantly higher turnover than the assessee should be excluded from the list of comparables. Consequently, five companies were directed to be excluded.
The Tribunal held that disallowance out of interest expenditure was not warranted as project-specific loans were not diverted. For other expenses, an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.2.00 lakhs was deemed appropriate, meeting the requirements of Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid as the AO had reason to believe income had escaped assessment. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the JDA and GPA did not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act in the year of agreement, as possession was not transferred in a manner contemplated by law.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for inventory shortage, holding that the detailed report supported the assessee's claim. The disallowance of exceptional items was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh examination. The revenue's appeal and assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was primarily challenging the merits of the issues, which had been remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration. Since the assessee's representative conceded that the issues were pending before the AO, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Since the dispute was being settled under that Act, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for inventory shortage, holding that the detailed report supported the assessee's claim. The disallowance of exceptional items was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh examination. The revenue's appeal and assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The revenue did not object to the assessee's prayer.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the tax liability for non-residents cannot exceed the lower rate prescribed under the DTAA or the Act, even if the non-resident fails to furnish their PAN.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies and remanded others for fresh consideration. It also held that negative working capital adjustments should not be made for captive service providers.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override Section 206AA of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the TDS liability should be at the lower rate prescribed by the DTAA or the Act, even if the non-resident deductee fails to furnish their PAN.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the tax liability for non-residents cannot exceed the lower rate prescribed under the DTAA or the Act, even if the non-resident fails to furnish their PAN.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the tax liability for non-residents cannot exceed the lower rate prescribed by the DTAA or the Act, even if the non-resident fails to furnish their PAN.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the tax liability for TDS cannot exceed the rate prescribed under the DTAA or the Act, whichever is lower, even if the non-resident fails to furnish their PAN.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the tax liability for non-residents cannot exceed the lower rate prescribed under the DTAA or the Act, even if the non-resident fails to furnish their PAN.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO. The AO had already examined the issue of provision for standard assets during the original assessment and accepted the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on suspicion and surmise without positive material to prove the assessee's ownership or beneficial interest in the bank account. Consequently, the reassessments were quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that supporting documents for the investor's capacity could not be produced earlier. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to produce documents.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had substantial interest-free own funds exceeding the interest-free advances, the advances were presumed to be out of own funds, thus disallowing interest expenses was not justified. For other expenses, the Tribunal reduced the ad-hoc disallowance from 25% to 12.5% considering the company's audited accounts but also the failure to provide adequate evidence.
The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies, specifically KALS Information Solutions Ltd. (SEG) and Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., were not functionally comparable to the assessee's software development services segment. This was based on the fact that these companies were found incomparable in the preceding assessment year and their functional profile had not changed.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of R&D expenses to the Assessing Officer for verification of documentary evidence. For bad debts and Pooja expenses, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claims with supporting documents and allowed a reasonable amount for Pooja expenses attributable to office celebrations.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. For interest income from fixed deposits, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow proportionate expenses if assessed as income from other sources, following the Karnataka High Court's decision in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. The AO failed to demonstrate a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, especially since the original assessment was completed after considering the relevant information.
The Tribunal found that the relevant facts regarding the nature of the derivative loss claim were not properly examined. Therefore, the issue needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10B for profits from granite slabs processed by it. However, deduction is not allowable for profits from exported purchased finished goods (trading items).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the medical emergency faced by the assessee's daughter. The appeal was then remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee failed to prove the nature of expenditures for which bills were not produced. It also agreed that the interior decoration expenses provided enduring benefits and could not be considered temporary structures.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on suspicion and surmise without positive material to prove the assessee's ownership or beneficial interest in the bank account. Consequently, the reassessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that payments for the resale/use of computer software through End User License Agreements (EULAs) or distribution agreements do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright. Consequently, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeal were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek recall if circumstances warranted.
The Tribunal held that the payments for software licenses were not royalty as they did not grant the right to use copyright. The Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Private Limited v. CIT & Anr. was followed, which clarified that such transactions are akin to the sale of goods.