Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that working capital adjustment is permissible for better comparability in transfer pricing analysis. Following its own coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the working capital adjustment.
The Tribunal found that the reliance on a previous draft assessment order was incorrect. Regarding Section 10AA, the Tribunal noted issues with the denial of relief and the assessee's evidence. For AMP expenses, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO/TPO for verification of the existence of an international transaction and the nature of AMP expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on the loan could not be allowed as a deduction against interest income from other sources. This was because the borrowed funds were not used for the purpose of earning interest income, but rather for making a deposit in the CGDA Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from software licensing and embedded software were not royalty, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. The Tribunal also held that support services did not constitute FTS as the technical know-how was not 'made available' to the customers.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on the loan could not be allowed as a deduction against interest income from other sources. This was because the borrowed funds were not used for the purpose of earning interest income, but rather for making a deposit in the CGDA Scheme.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of AMP expenditure to the AO/TPO for verification, stating that the existence of an international transaction must be established. It also directed the AO to grant credit for TDS and SA Tax after verification.
The Tribunal restored the issue of community development expenditure to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, taking into account judicial pronouncements and providing the assessee with a hearing. The other issues were not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal restored the issue of community development expenditure to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, taking into account judicial pronouncements and providing the assessee with a hearing. The other issues were not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal restored the issue of community development expenditure to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, taking into account judicial pronouncements and providing the assessee with a hearing. The other issues were not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act was not applicable to the interest payable to the co-operative bank for the assessment year in question. The consent given by the assessee's representative was not binding as there is no estoppel against law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order to exclude companies with turnover exceeding Rs. 200 Crores from the list of comparables, following established precedents. It also addressed the assessee's plea for inclusion of certain companies.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is not retrospective and does not apply to the assessment year in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal restored the issue of community development expenditure to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, taking into account judicial pronouncements and providing the assessee with a hearing. The other issues were not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF & ESI is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), it is allowable as a deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act 2021 are prospective and do not apply to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal found that the TPO's application of turnover and RPT filters lacked legal basis, and the TP adjustment was made at the entity level instead of the international transaction level. The depreciation issue was also found to require fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that brought forward losses need not be set off for Section 10B deduction, following jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions. It also held that once eligibility for Section 10B is accepted in the first year, it cannot be denied in subsequent years without change in facts.
The Tribunal found that the TPO's application of turnover and RPT filters lacked legal basis, and the TP adjustment was made at the entity level instead of the international transaction level. The depreciation issue was also found to require fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date for filing the income tax return, it is allowable as a deduction. The disallowance by the revenue authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal held that brought forward losses need not be set off for Section 10B deduction, following jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions. It also held that once eligibility for Section 10B is accepted in the first year, it cannot be denied in subsequent years without change in facts.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee provided evidence that UB Global deducted TDS on these payments before making them to third parties. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the AO to verify if UB Global had indeed deducted and remitted the TDS.
The Tribunal held that if the employee's contribution to PF & ESI is paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), it is allowable as a deduction, even if paid after the due date prescribed by the respective PF/ESI Acts. The amendments made by the Finance Act 2021 are prospective and do not apply to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to EPF and ESI paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) are allowable as a deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) is an allowable deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date for filing the income tax return, it is allowable as a deduction. The disallowance by the revenue authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments made in banks (not being co-operative societies) is not deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). However, it directed that proportionate expenses should be allowed when taxing such interest income.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's plea for condonation of delay, acknowledging the significant time lapse but also the assessee's reliance on legal advice and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal ultimately decided on the merits of various appeals.
The Tribunal addressed grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, specifically the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable set. It also considered the disallowance of provision for sales return, examining the accrual of liability and relevant case laws.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed service tax payment is a deductible business expenditure. Regarding software expenses, it directed the AO to re-examine the issue in light of specific CBDT notifications and High Court decisions. The disallowance of bad debts was confirmed.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's grounds related to the exclusion of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd. and Persistent Systems Ltd. from the comparable set in transfer pricing. It also addressed grounds related to corporate tax matters, including the disallowance of provision for sales return.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the addition made for AY 2018-19 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the payments were for services rendered and did not involve making technical knowledge available to the assessee as per the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, TDS was not required, and the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that despite the land being converted for non-agricultural purposes, agricultural operations continued, and it remained recorded as agricultural land. Therefore, the sale of the land was exempt from capital gains tax.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are prospective and applicable only from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the assessee's claim for deduction for the assessment year 2019-20, where payments were made before the due date for filing the return, is allowable.
The Tribunal addressed grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, specifically the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable set. It also considered the disallowance of provision for sales return, examining the accrual of liability and relevant case laws.
The Tribunal addressed grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, specifically the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable set. It also considered the disallowance of provision for sales return, examining the accrual of liability and relevant case laws.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's plea for condonation of delay, acknowledging the significant time lapse but also the assessee's reliance on legal advice and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal ultimately decided on the merits of various appeals.
The Tribunal held that despite the land being converted for non-agricultural purposes, agricultural operations continued, and it remained recorded as agricultural land. Therefore, the sale of the land was exempt from capital gains tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a confirming party and financier to the transaction, not a party that transferred land. Therefore, any escalation in land value could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The amounts received were considered liabilities rather than income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a confirming party and financier to the transaction, not a party that transferred land. Therefore, any escalation in land value could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The amounts received were considered liabilities rather than income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a confirming party and financier to the transaction, not a party that transferred land. Therefore, any escalation in land value could not be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The amounts received were considered liabilities rather than income.
The Tribunal held that the demand notice from the builder and the cheque payment sufficiently proved the expenditure was incurred for the property. The CIT(A) was not justified in doubting the genuineness of the expenses.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is not retrospective and does not apply to the assessment year in question. The assessee is entitled to deduction for employee's contribution to PF and ESI paid before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's plea for condonation of delay, acknowledging the significant time lapse but also the assessee's reliance on legal advice and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal ultimately decided on the merits of various appeals.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's plea for condonation of delay, acknowledging the significant time lapse but also the assessee's reliance on legal advice and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal ultimately decided on the merits of various appeals.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 was remanded for fresh determination. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO/TPO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the deduction is allowable if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).
The Tribunal considered the assessee's plea for condonation of delay, acknowledging the significant time lapse but also the assessee's reliance on legal advice and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal ultimately decided on the merits of various appeals.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's plea for condonation of delay, acknowledging the significant time lapse but also the assessee's reliance on legal advice and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal ultimately decided on the merits of various appeals.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's plea for condonation of delay, acknowledging the significant time lapse but also the assessee's reliance on legal advice and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal ultimately decided on the merits of various appeals.