Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 2 of 2
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had received acceptance. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the designated authority had accepted the same. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee having opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and having received acceptance for the same.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeal were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in the appeal were settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee having opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and having received acceptance for the same.
The Tribunal found that the documentation provided by the assessee was general and did not conclusively establish the arm's length nature of the payments for intra-group services. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the documentation provided by the assessee was general and did not conclusively establish the arm's length nature of the payments for intra-group services. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act applies only to deductions otherwise allowable under the Act. Since the assessee did not claim the outstanding service tax liability as a deduction, the provisions of Section 43B were not attracted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act applies only to deductions otherwise allowable under the Act. Since the assessee did not claim the outstanding service tax liability as a deduction, the provisions of Section 43B were not attracted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the AO cannot assess income not attributable to the year. It acknowledged that the difference might arise from timing differences in revenue recognition and advance payments. The Tribunal found that the reconciliation provided was insufficient and lacked examination by tax authorities.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to include three specific comparables (R.S. Software Ltd., Evoke Technologies Ltd., and CG-Vak Software and Exports Ltd.) in the final list.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the AO for fresh examination in light of a Supreme Court decision. For interest income, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow proportionate deduction of expenses if assessing it as income from other sources, following a Karnataka High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the consideration received for the sale/use of computer software through distribution agreements or EULAs does not constitute royalty for the use of copyright. Therefore, it does not give rise to taxable income in India, and no TDS was required.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, certain comparables were excluded, and others were remanded for reconsideration by the AO/TPO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for not deducting TDS on year-end provisions, as the liabilities were unquantifiable at the time of provision creation. The subsequent disallowance and TDS deduction in the following year, along with payment of interest under Section 201(1A), demonstrated no malafide intention.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that an incorrect Form 16A was submitted inadvertently. It restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to clarify the factual discrepancy.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not own more than one residential property at the time of transfer and that the construction expenses were supported by evidence. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are revenue expenditure eligible for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. It also directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies for transfer pricing adjustments and remanded one comparable for reconsideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move an application for recall of the order if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the purchase of software in this case does not give rise to taxable income in India, and therefore, Section 195 of the Act is not attracted. Consequently, the assessee has no obligation to deduct tax at source, and Section 9(1)(vi) is not applicable.
The Tribunal held that income earned by the assessee through 'on-site' development of software by an Associated Enterprise (AE) on behalf of the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10A, provided the AE worked under the assessee's supervision and the assessee bore the risks. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant depreciation on computer peripherals at 60% and remanded certain additional claims to the DRP.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of depreciation disallowance back to the AO for fresh decision, similar to previous years. For the transfer pricing issue, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to verify if expenses were subsumed in operating expenses under TNMM, and if so, no separate benchmarking would be necessary.