Loading ITAT cases…
219 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without rejecting the books of account or providing specific reasons for disallowing the expenses. The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest the expenses were bogus or that the closing stock valuation was incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient reasons. It also set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal considered the arguments regarding the exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd. from the list of comparable companies. It noted that Infosys BPO Ltd. provides high-end integrated and diversified services, possesses significant brand value, and has undergone acquisitions, making it functionally dissimilar to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Act are not clarificatory and therefore not retrospective. The judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka Limited was followed.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the application of a turnover filter for comparable companies. Grounds 1-7 and 10-11 were dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal remitted the issue of comparable selection and ALP computation back to the AO/TPO after applying the turnover filter.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient reasons. It also set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, as the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Subsequently, as the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that provisions written back should be considered as part of the assessee's revenue when determining the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). The issue of provisions written back was remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the pharmacy's operation was ancillary and incidental to the dominant charitable object of running a hospital. Therefore, the requirement of maintaining separate books of account under Section 11(4A) was not applicable in this case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of Rs. 10.25 lakhs in a prior assessment year and the remaining Rs. 3.85 lakhs could be explained by salary savings, given the assessee's substantial salary income.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to recompute the ALP by considering only the operating cost attributable to international transactions, not the total operating cost. It also allowed an additional ground regarding the correct margins of comparable companies.
The Tribunal held that the three additions made by the AO were independent and mutually exclusive, thus the matching principle could not be applied. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were allowed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of written-off advances to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, directing the assessee to furnish evidence. The Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of per diem allowances, finding it uncalled for.
The Tribunal held that Infosys Technologies Ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparable companies due to functional dissimilarity, as it owns significant intangibles and has substantial revenue from software products. Other grounds raised by the revenue were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that Infosys Technologies Ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparable companies due to functional dissimilarity, as it owns significant intangibles and has substantial revenue from software products. Other grounds raised by the revenue were rendered academic.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee pursuing rectification applications and relying on tax consultant advice. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is not allowable as the asset did not exist in the seller's depreciation chart and the transaction was viewed as a colorable device. Interest paid under Section 201(1A) is not a deductible business expenditure. The disallowance of interest on bank overdraft was remanded for further evidence.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even if the cost of the asset was treated as application of income, following a Supreme Court decision. Regarding loan repayment, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine if the cost of assets acquired via loan was allowed as application of income.