Loading ITAT cases…
168 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that several companies proposed as comparables by the TPO and DRP were not functionally comparable due to lack of segmental details, provision of high-end services, or failure to meet filters. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that several companies proposed as comparables by the TPO and DRP were not functionally comparable due to lack of segmental details, provision of high-end services, or failure to meet filters. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the AO should have disposed of the objections by a separate speaking order, this procedural lapse does not necessarily nullify the assessment. The matter was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that the margin accepted in MAP proceedings with the US AE should be adopted for non-US AE transactions as no distinction was made between them. The appeal was decided based on this finding.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies and remanded others for fresh consideration by the TPO. It also directed that foreign exchange should be considered operating income for working capital adjustments and that negative working capital adjustments should not be made for captive service providers.
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Co-operative Act, 1997, fit the definition of 'co-operative society' under Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, they are entitled to claim the deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to allow depreciation on investments, relying on a jurisdictional High Court ruling. However, it set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s decision on Section 14A and allowed the revenue's grounds regarding certain payments, vacating the CIT(Appeals)'s relief.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to allow depreciation on investments based on the Karnataka High Court ruling. However, it vacated the CIT(Appeals)'s relief on payments to co-operative funds and restored the AO's position.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars which apply retrospectively. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity after it ceased to exist is ab initio void. The assessment order was annulled as it was without jurisdiction and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263. The AO had conducted necessary inquiries, and the omission of clause (i) of Section 92BA meant that the PCIT could not set aside the order for non-compliance with a non-existent provision.
The tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to consider the impounded documents and the assessee's submissions regarding them. The PCIT was justified in directing a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) admitted additional evidence without confronting it to the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the determination of ALP, including adjustments for underutilized capacity and working capital, needed to be re-examined. It also found that the DRP had not properly analyzed the assessee's submissions regarding comparable companies.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) improperly rejected the application without clearly indicating the deficiencies in the information provided. The matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) improperly rejected the application without clearly indicating the deficiencies in the information provided. The matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of interest paid to NBFCs, except for a portion related to Tata Capital, which was restored to the AO for fresh examination. The disallowance of wages was deleted, and the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the exempt income. The disallowance of interest related to land advance was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of interest paid to NBFCs, except for a portion related to Tata Capital, which was restored to the AO for fresh examination. The disallowance of wages was deleted, and the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the exempt income. The disallowance of interest related to land advance was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee's explanation for the delay, due to the transition of tax personnel and misplacement of files, was accepted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not maintain books of accounts and had filed its return on an estimated basis, which was accepted by the AO, the addition for expenses incurred outside books was not justified. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was also not applicable.
The Tribunal held that a protective assessment cannot stand without a substantive assessment. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for de novo consideration, pending the outcome of the HUF's assessment.
The tribunal dismissed the transfer pricing grounds as not pressed due to resolution under MAP. For the Section 10AA issue, the tribunal followed High Court and Supreme Court precedents, holding that charges excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed written submissions which were not considered by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals)'s file for a fresh decision after considering the submissions and providing a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish commercial expediency for advancing interest-free loans to its subsidiary in a different line of business. The subsidiary further advanced these funds to related parties without interest, indicating they were not used for business purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed written submissions which were not considered by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals)'s file for a fresh decision after considering the submissions and providing a hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed written submissions which were not considered by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals)'s file for a fresh decision after considering the submissions and providing a hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed written submissions which were not considered by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(Appeals)'s file for a fresh decision after considering the submissions and providing a hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the exclusion of Rubicon Research Pvt. Ltd. due to functional dissimilarity, as it was engaged in in-house R&D without revenue generation from such activities. Similarly, GVK Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. was excluded as it was a product company with patents and high-level research, unlike the assessee's captive service provider role.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income from other sources as required by Section 57(iii). The Tribunal also rejected the alternative claim for capitalization against capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investment in the kiln was not justified as the balance sheet for the subsequent year showed a higher investment. Regarding the cash found, the Tribunal found merit in telescoping it with a surrender made by a sister concern.
The Tribunal held that the expenses related to underutilization of capacity were not to be excluded from operating costs for transfer pricing adjustments. However, it allowed a deduction for irrecoverable insurance claims by remanding the issue for further examination.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to Facebook Ireland for advertisement charges do not fall within the definition of 'royalty' under the DTAA and are not chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, the assessee cannot be considered an assessee in default.
The Tribunal held that while the presumptions under Section 292C of the IT Act apply, the entire turnover cannot be considered as undisclosed income. Estimating income at 5% of the turnover, as done by the CIT(Appeals), is reasonable and fair.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. As a result, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to Facebook Ireland for advertisement charges do not fall within the definition of 'royalty' under the DTAA and are not chargeable to tax in India. Consequently, there was no requirement to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to Facebook Ireland for advertisement charges do not fall within the definition of 'royalty' as per the DTAA and are not taxable in India. Consequently, the assessee cannot be considered an assessee in default.
The Tribunal held that the AO's calculation of accumulation on net income was contrary to settled law, which mandates calculation on gross receipts. Therefore, the assessee's claim for rectification under Section 154 was valid.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on repairs and renovation of leased premises was revenue in nature, relying on jurisdictional High Court precedents. Regarding the ex-gratia payment, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration, stating that CIT(A)'s powers are coterminous with AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) order was passed without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and was therefore a non-speaking order. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee raised new contentions regarding hiring vehicles at market rates and executing work under its own control. As the facts supporting these contentions were not on record, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of four specific comparable companies from the final list. It also restored three other companies to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh examination regarding their comparability. The issue of working capital adjustment was also restored to the AO/TPO for consideration.
The Tribunal held that a mistake in the audit report, which was subsequently rectified by filing a revised report, should be considered. Furthermore, since a subsequent assessment under section 143(3) did not make the disallowance, the demand raised under section 143(1) was effaced.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the advances appearing in the balance sheet constituted an acknowledgement of debt and did not amount to extinguishment or remission of liability under Section 41(1).
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored both issues regarding deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. This was based on recent Supreme Court and High Court decisions that required a re-evaluation of the assessee's eligibility for these deductions.