Loading ITAT cases…
177 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the addition on real estate commission, following a previous decision that estimated additions cannot be sustained without contrary evidence. Other grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s exclusion of comparable companies based on the reasons provided. However, the direction for risk adjustment was modified to require the assessee to provide necessary information for computation.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decided to remand all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a reasoned order after verifying the evidence and providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the entire appeal without adjudicating the grounds related to the final assessment order, even though grounds pertaining to the revised TPO order were also raised. The appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the addition on real estate commission, following a previous decision that estimated additions cannot be sustained without contrary evidence. Other grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the recharacterization of the assessee's marketing support services by the TPO needed to be verified denovo. It also directed the AO to grant depreciation on capital assets and to consider the claim for salaries paid to seconded employees and bonding/debonding charges, remanding these issues for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rectifying the assessment order under Section 154 to apply Section 167B. The applicability of Section 167B was a debatable issue, and the AO had not examined the necessary facts regarding indeterminate shares of members before passing the rectification order.
The Tribunal held that the set-off of business loss is permissible against income assessed under Section 68, as the prohibition on set-off was introduced later. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to set off its business loss.
The Tribunal held that interest income received by a cooperative society for providing credit facilities to its members is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), as per the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT. The CIT's revision order was found to be incorrect.
The ITAT admitted the additional evidence and decided to remand the case to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of all issues. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order after verifying the evidence and granting an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and decided to remand the case to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of all issues. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order after verifying the evidence and granting an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the transfer pricing grounds. For the addition based on service tax returns, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification of reconciliation statements. The MAT credit issue was also remanded as consequential.
The Tribunal held that the provision for warranty created by the assessee was based on a scientific method and historical trends, satisfying the Supreme Court's criteria. Therefore, the disallowance of the warranty provision by the lower authorities could not be sustained.
The tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding bad debts and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider relevant Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that data automation expenses are revenue in nature, following its own previous decisions and allowing the deduction. It also held that the ESOP expenses were wrongly disallowed due to a misinterpretation of invoice dates and should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses incurred prior to April 1, 2013, are allowable as revenue expenditure. Regarding Section 14A disallowance, it directed the Assessing Officer to re-work it based only on investments that yielded tax-free income.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses incurred prior to April 1, 2013, are allowable as revenue expenditure. Regarding Section 14A disallowance, it directed the Assessing Officer to re-work it based only on investments that yielded tax-free income.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies in the ITES segment and allowed the deduction under Section 10AA as per the Supreme Court's decision. The disallowance of software expenses was also allowed for statistical purposes, directing verification in light of a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, allowing the assessee's claim for Section 10A deduction on enhanced income due to disallowance. It also directed the TPO to consider internal comparables for transfer pricing instead of external ones.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable to depreciation claims as it is not an expenditure. It also directed the AO to re-work disallowance under Section 14A based on investments yielding tax-free income. The issue of superannuation fund contribution was remanded to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT exceeded his jurisdiction under section 263 because the issue examined was not part of the limited scrutiny reasons. Furthermore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous as the Pr.CIT failed to demonstrate that the issue fell within the limited scrutiny scope.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, allowing the assessee's claim for Section 10A deduction on enhanced income due to disallowance. It also directed the TPO to consider internal comparables for transfer pricing instead of external ones.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable to depreciation claims as it is not an expenditure. It also directed the AO to re-work disallowance under Section 14A based on investments yielding tax-free income. The issue of superannuation fund contribution was remanded to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable to depreciation claims as it is not an expenditure. It also directed the AO to re-work disallowance under Section 14A based on investments yielding tax-free income. The issue of superannuation fund contribution was remanded to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of foreign exchange fluctuation losses and custom duty adjustments back to the TPO for fresh consideration. It also held that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted only to associated enterprise (AE) related transactions.
The Tribunal held that data automation expenses are revenue in nature, following its own previous decisions and allowing the deduction. It also held that the ESOP expenses were wrongly disallowed due to a misinterpretation of invoice dates and should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the issue required re-examination in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the investments in captive power units did not qualify as a 'new plant' or 'newly installed capacity' for the production of fertilizer. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the weighted deduction under Section 35AD.
The Tribunal held that the reference made by the AO to the TPO was invalid as it did not satisfy the conditions laid down in CBDT Instruction No. 3 of 2016. Consequently, the addition made based on the TPO's order was a nullity and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities were not justified in computing the income under POCM without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The AO cannot thrust a particular accounting method on the assessee without rejecting their books.
The Tribunal held that the investments in captive power units did not qualify as a 'new plant' or 'newly installed capacity' for the production of fertilizer. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the weighted deduction under Section 35AD.
The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 28(iv) for equipment received for testing, stating that it was not a benefit or perquisite. It also deleted the addition for unprovided import invoices, finding that the equipment was for testing and to be returned.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to examine the allowability of the substantial amount of advances written off, which significantly contributed to the returned loss. The mere submission of details by the assessee does not equate to verification by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to an adjustment for abnormal raw material consumption in its first year of operation. It also directed that working capital adjustments should be allowed and that the interest charged on External Commercial Borrowings (ECBs) at LIBOR + 150 basis points was within the arm's length, as per RBI guidelines.
The Tribunal held that the issue of interest on receivables requires fresh determination by the AO/TPO. It directed the TPO to consider the credit period of 90 days as per the amended agreement and to benchmark the ALP afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in examining the Section 54F exemption even in a limited scrutiny case. However, the Tribunal found that the plea that the units received under the JDA should be considered as one residential house was not taken before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the concession made by the assessee's representative before the CIT(A) was erroneous. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that several companies selected by the TPO were not comparable and directed their exclusion. It also ruled that software expenses incurred for application software and short-term licenses are revenue expenditures and should be allowed in full.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days, admitting the appeals for adjudication. The primary grounds of appeal challenge the jurisdiction of Section 153A proceedings and various additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days, admitting the appeals for adjudication. The primary grounds of appeal challenge the jurisdiction of Section 153A proceedings and various additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days, admitting the appeals for adjudication. The primary grounds of appeal challenge the jurisdiction of Section 153A proceedings and various additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days, admitting the appeals for adjudication. The primary grounds of appeal challenge the jurisdiction of Section 153A proceedings and various additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days, admitting the appeals for adjudication. The primary grounds of appeal challenge the jurisdiction of Section 153A proceedings and various additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days, admitting the appeals for adjudication. The primary grounds of appeal challenge the jurisdiction of Section 153A proceedings and various additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in examining the Section 54F exemption even in a limited scrutiny case. However, the Tribunal found that the plea that the units received under the JDA should be considered as one residential house was not taken before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal had become infructuous due to the reduction of the TP adjustment to Nil. The Tribunal directed the AO to pass consequential orders based on the TPO's revised order.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is not allowable as it was not explicitly covered under Section 32 of the Act. However, it allowed the finance cost disallowance as the assessee's own funds exceeded the advances made to sister concerns.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is not allowable as it was not explicitly covered under Section 32 of the Act. However, it allowed the finance cost disallowance as the assessee's own funds exceeded the advances made to sister concerns.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is not allowable as it was not explicitly covered under Section 32 of the Act. However, it allowed the finance cost disallowance as the assessee's own funds exceeded the advances made to sister concerns.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is not allowable as it was not explicitly covered under Section 32 of the Act. However, it allowed the finance cost disallowance as the assessee's own funds exceeded the advances made to sister concerns.