Loading ITAT cases…
270 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that receipts from the sale of software licenses and ancillary support services are not taxable as royalty or FTS in India. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in the Engineering Analysis Centre for Excellence Pvt. Ltd. case.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(i) is not applicable to depreciation claims as depreciation is a statutory deduction and not an expenditure. The Hon'ble High Court had previously remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, held that the discount on ESOPs represents an ascertained business liability deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for quantification.
The ITAT amended its previous order, holding that payments for software purchases do not constitute 'royalty' and therefore no TDS was deductible under Section 195.
The ITAT amended its previous order, holding that software purchase payments do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) and the DTAA. Consequently, there is no liability for TDS under Section 195 on such payments.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for software sales do not constitute royalty. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment with identical facts.
The ITAT amended its previous order, holding that payments for software purchases do not constitute 'royalty' and therefore no TDS was deductible under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 for loans from Sri. Vinay Prasad, Sri. Praful V. Shah, and Smt. Sarojamma was justified due to lack of genuineness and creditworthiness. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) for interest paid to the assessee's wife and HUF was deleted, finding it uncalled for.
The Tribunal allowed grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, directing recalculation of margins for comparable companies and restricting adjustments to AE transactions. The issue of interest expense disallowance was not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests partial allowance.
The Tribunal allowed grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, directing the AO/TPO to rectify the margin of a comparable company and restrict adjustments to AE transactions. The corporate tax issue regarding interest disallowance was remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not examined whether the income was declared in the subsequent year and that adding it in the current year could lead to double taxation. The case was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the issue of comparability of certain companies (Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd.) to the TPO for fresh consideration. It also directed the TPO/AO to allow working capital adjustment, following its earlier decision.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding unexplained expenditures due to insufficient evidence. However, it partly allowed the appeal on low drawings by reducing the addition and remanded the issue of cash deposits for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal restored the issue of comparability of certain companies (Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd.) to the TPO for fresh consideration. It also directed the TPO/AO to allow working capital adjustment, following its earlier decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue of comparability of certain companies (Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd.) to the TPO for fresh consideration. It also directed the TPO/AO to allow working capital adjustment, following its earlier decision.
The Tribunal held that the margin accepted in MAP for US AE transactions should be applied to non-US AE transactions in the ITES segment. Issues related to negative working capital adjustment and set-off of brought forward loss were directed to be considered by the AO.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for an aborted share issue are allowable as a deduction. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision, it was determined that these expenses did not result in the creation of a capital asset or enduring benefit.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the foreign agent were purely marketing services and not 'fee for technical services'. Therefore, the income of the foreign agent did not accrue or arise in India, and there was no liability to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal held that the margin accepted in MAP for US AE transactions should be applied to non-US AE transactions in the ITES segment. Issues related to negative working capital adjustment and set-off of brought forward loss were directed to be considered by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record satisfaction that the seized documents belonged to the assessees, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 153C. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was deemed bad in law.