Loading ITAT cases…
141 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the corrigendum issued to correct an error in the original valuation report should not be treated as inadmissible additional evidence. The matter was restored to the AO for re-examination of the full valuation report, including the corrigendum.
The Tribunal restored the issue of assets received free of cost to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination regarding the transfer of ownership. The issue of MAT credit was also restored to the AO for factual verification. The transfer pricing adjustment issue was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt but was part of the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had sustained 10% of the additions without proper examination. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessee to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had sustained 10% of the additions without a thorough examination of facts. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, with a direction for the assessee to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had sustained 10% of the additions without a thorough examination of facts. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, with a direction for the assessee to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS can only be given in the assessment year in which the income attributable to the TDS is assessable. Since the assessee did not disclose the corresponding income, the CIT(Appeals)'s order allowing the TDS credit was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on deposits made for bank guarantees, especially those given to the Income Tax department, is not derived from the business of an undertaking eligible for Section 10A deduction. However, the Tribunal allowed deduction of expenses incurred on buy-back of shares as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for the resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not give rise to any income taxable in India.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, finding no error in allowing the interest claim. It noted that the interest liability was shown as payable and did not fall under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54F, restricting deduction to one residential house, was prospective. It also ruled that the addition under Section 68 was uncalled for as the violation of Section 269SS does not automatically lead to an addition under Section 68.
The assessee's authorized representative informed the tribunal that the appeal was not being pressed. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects were for the benefit of its members only, not the public at large. Therefore, the CIT(E) was correct in denying registration under Section 12AA.
The Tribunal held that interest income from deposits made for bank guarantees given to the Income Tax and Customs departments is not derived from the business of the undertaking and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 10A. However, the Tribunal allowed deduction for expenses incurred on buy-back of shares as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had sustained 10% of the additions without proper examination. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessee to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for the resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not give rise to any income taxable in India.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the consideration received for the sale of software and associated hardware does not constitute royalty. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling that such transactions are essentially sales of goods and do not involve the transfer of copyright rights.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The scheme acceptance forms were filed and accepted by the designated authority.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of an entity that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation is void ab initio and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the assessment order was annulled.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of an entity that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation is void ab initio and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the assessment order was annulled.
The assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention regarding the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the capital gains were substantively assessed in AY 2011-12, a protective assessment in AY 2015-16 was not permissible. The deletion of the protective addition by the CIT(Appeals) was upheld.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to resolve the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The assessee requested their appeals be treated as withdrawn due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal accepted this request and dismissed the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from the sale of software were not in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services (FTS). It applied the Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause from the India-Portuguese DTAA, requiring technical services to be 'made available' to the recipient, which was not the case here.
The assessee requested their appeals be treated as withdrawn due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal accepted this request and dismissed the appeals.
The assessee requested their appeals be treated as withdrawn due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The Tribunal accepted this request and dismissed the appeals.
The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition, holding that the property was received as a gift from parents in 2007-08 and introduced into books in 2013-14. The Tribunal confirmed this, finding no infirmity in the CIT(Appeals)'s view.
The Tribunal held that the contribution towards SPV, being a requirement to continue business activities, is an allowable expenditure. It also noted that the assessee's accounting of sale proceeds and related expenses needed to adhere to the mercantile system of accounting.
The Tribunal held that payments for the sale of software, including ancillary support services, are not royalty. This is because the transaction constitutes a sale of goods, and the End User License Agreements (EULAs) do not grant rights to use or exploit copyright.
The Tribunal held that a mere difference of opinion on a claim, without the claim being bogus or false, does not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the payment for software purchase was not royalty, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Pvt. Ltd. The assessee was therefore not liable to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from the sale of software, even with support services, do not constitute royalty. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Engineering Analysis Centre case, which clarified that such transactions are sales of goods and not payments for the use of copyright.
The Tribunal noted that setting up a business and commencing production are distinct. While the assessee likely set up its business, the applicability of Section 35E of the Income Tax Act for amortizing expenses needed examination. However, due to the elapsed period for carrying forward losses, the issue became academic.
The Tribunal noted that setting up a business and commencing production are distinct. While the assessee likely set up its business, the applicability of Section 35E of the Income Tax Act for amortizing expenses needed examination. However, due to the elapsed period for carrying forward losses, the issue became academic.
The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance issue to the AO for fresh examination, deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) regarding software purchases, and restored the Form 26AS difference issue to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal allowed the inclusion of certain comparable companies and directed a fresh consideration for others. It also directed the Assessing Officer to compute working capital adjustments on an actual basis and allowed software expenses as expenditure without TDS.