Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and lacked a decision on merits. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to both parties.
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 amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be not applicable retrospectively to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that two companies, E-Clerx Services Ltd. and Infosys BPO Ltd., were functionally dissimilar and should be excluded from the list of comparables for the ITES segment. Regarding the Section 10A deduction, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order to reduce expenses from both export and total turnover, following High Court and Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of certain comparable companies by the DRP in the software development segment. It also directed the AO to grant TDS credit to the assessee upon verification.
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 amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were held to be not applicable retrospectively to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that an agreement to sell an immovable property does not constitute a transfer under the Income Tax Act, as title only passes upon registration of the sale deed. Therefore, capital gains cannot be assessed in the year of the agreement to sell.
The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is not clarificatory and does not apply retrospectively. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding availing the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the share issue expenses were not eligible for amortization under Section 35D as they were not for public subscription or business expansion. The Tribunal also referred to Supreme Court decisions indicating such expenses are generally capital in nature.
The Tribunal held that two companies, E-Clerx Services Ltd. and Infosys BPO Ltd., were functionally dissimilar and should be excluded from the list of comparables for the ITES segment. Regarding the Section 10A deduction, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order to reduce expenses from both export and total turnover, following High Court and Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are not retrospective and do not apply to the assessment year in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, employees' contribution paid before the due date for filing the return is an allowable deduction.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), is an allowable deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not considered retrospective in nature and thus not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction. It further held that the amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, are not retrospective in nature.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to reasonable cause, admitted additional evidence from the assessee, and restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot change the method of valuation adopted by the assessee, following the precedent set by the Bombay High Court and a co-ordinate bench. The issue of share valuation was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of an architect's certificate regarding the temporary nature of the structures. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the expenditure as either revenue expenditure or eligible for 100% depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not considered retrospective in nature.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Capgemini Business Services (India) Ltd. and Infosys BPO Ltd. from the list of comparable companies due to significant functional dissimilarity, higher turnover, and brand value. The Tribunal also considered the issue of negative working capital adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution paid before the due date of filing the return of income is an allowable deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were not considered retrospective in nature.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), is eligible for deduction. The amendment brought 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.