Loading ITAT cases…
105 orders · Page 2 of 3
The tribunal held that interest on delayed receivables should not be treated as a separate international transaction but factored into the ALP of the primary transaction. The matter was remitted to the TPO/AO for fresh determination of the addition on account of interest on delayed receivables, considering the currency of repayment for the interest rate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals without considering the merits or the representation filed by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, the Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF and ESI must be remitted before the due date under the relevant welfare legislation to be allowable under Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that for Section 28(iv) to apply, income must accrue to the assessee, and hypothetical income cannot be taxed. While some assets received on loan were confirmed as taxable due to lack of re-export proof, relief was granted for assets with re-export documentation. The issue of other assets received on loan/free of cost was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the cash deposit addition in light of CBDT guidelines and a coordinate bench decision, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The additional ground regarding ad-hoc disallowance was dismissed as it was not emanating from the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not violate Section 269ST as the cash receipts from each party did not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs in a single day or in respect of a single transaction. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271DA was not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding depreciation on goodwill, following previous decisions. For foreign royalty, the issue was remitted to the AO to allow credit for foreign tax paid. Disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) for year-end provisions were deleted. Disallowances under Section 43B were remitted to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to exclude certain companies from the comparable set and to include others, based on functional comparability and previous rulings. It also directed adjustments for working capital differences.
The tribunal held that employee contributions to PF and ESI must be remitted on or before the due date specified under the relevant welfare legislation for them to be allowable as a deduction under Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that a provision for doubtful debts, when adjusted against sundry debtors on the asset side, is considered an actual write-off and not a provision for unascertained liability. Therefore, it cannot be added back to book profits under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that a validly filed revised return completely effaces the original return. Therefore, the assessment order based on the original return was bad in law, and consequently, the PCIT's revision order was also void.
The Tribunal found that the AO's computation for the land development cost disallowance was not in accordance with law. The Tribunal decided to remand both issues to the AO for fresh verification, directing the AO to consider all evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding depreciation on goodwill, following previous decisions. For foreign royalty, the issue was remitted to the AO to allow credit for foreign tax paid. Disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) for year-end provisions were deleted. Disallowances under Section 43B were remitted to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to exclude certain companies from the comparable set and to include others, based on functional comparability and previous rulings. It also directed adjustments for working capital differences.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and the principle that the assessee gains nothing from belated filing. The matter of disallowance under Section 14A was restored to the AO for recomputation based on a Special Bench decision, and the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G was remitted to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the payments made for online advertisement space do not constitute 'royalty' under the India-Ireland DTAA. International jurisprudence and OECD recommendations suggest such payments are business profits, taxable only if the non-resident has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.
The Tribunal held that the payments made for online advertisement space do not constitute 'royalty' under the India-Ireland DTAA. International jurisprudence and OECD recommendations suggest such payments are business profits, taxable only if the non-resident has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The judgment also noted a violation of natural justice regarding the demonetisation period issue and remanded it for verification.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-appearance before the authorities, decided to grant one last opportunity in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the AO for the assessee to raise objections to the additions.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The judgment also noted a violation of natural justice regarding the demonetisation period issue and remanded it for verification.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The judgment also noted a violation of natural justice regarding the demonetisation period issue and remanded it for verification.
The Tribunal held that the payments made for online advertisement space do not constitute 'royalty' under the India-Ireland DTAA. International jurisprudence and OECD recommendations suggest such payments are business profits, taxable only if the non-resident has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.
The Tribunal held that the payments made for online advertisement space do not constitute 'royalty' under the India-Ireland DTAA. International jurisprudence and OECD recommendations suggest such payments are business profits, taxable only if the non-resident has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and DRP had not examined the software license agreement and had relied on a High Court ruling later overruled by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the agreement.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made while computing book profit under Section 115JB in a rectification proceeding under Section 154, following jurisdictional High Court rulings. The issue of Passenger Service Fees was not fully adjudicated due to the judgment on Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a change of opinion by the AO, as the AO had access to all material facts during the original assessment. The AO's reassessment was not based on any new material or failure by the assessee to disclose facts.
The Tribunal found that the commercial expediency of the advancement of money by the proprietary concern to the private limited company needed further verification. It directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the ledger accounts, cash flow statements, and relevant documents from the period the money was advanced.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the issue of disallowance of accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the amended Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, effective from April 1, 1989, does not envisage a penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax. The Assessing Officer erred in levying the penalty under Section 221(1) without a corresponding amendment.
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-examine the comparability of certain companies (Informed Technologies India Limited and Crystal Voxx Limited) and Ace BPO Services Private Limited. The Tribunal also restored other issues related to grounds 16(e), 16(g), and 16(h) to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the transfer pricing adjustment, upholding the DRP's decision to exclude a comparable company due to high related party transactions. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the disallowance of expenses for medical practitioners, remanding the issue to the AO for fresh verification in light of new evidence and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the transfer pricing adjustment, upholding the DRP's decision to exclude a comparable company due to high related party transactions. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the disallowance of expenses for medical practitioners, remanding the issue to the AO for fresh verification in light of new evidence and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the estimated cost of construction by the developer cannot be considered as sale consideration for capital gains. It upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s direction to recompute capital gains using the guideline value of the property.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT passed an ex parte order without considering the assessee's objections, which is bad in law. Therefore, the matter needs to be examined afresh by the PCIT.
The Tribunal noted that Form 27C was belatedly filed and not accepted by the revenue. The assessee argued that the forms were correctly filed and requested verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO should reconsider the disallowances of trade payables and other expenses, taking into account the details and confirmations submitted by the assessee. The AO was also directed to verify advance tax paid and give due credit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the expenses were not for business purposes or that the share transactions were sham. The Tribunal relied on various case laws emphasizing that the onus is on the Revenue to prove understatement of income.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B of the IT Act are not retrospective. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, it ruled that employees' contributions paid before the due date for filing the return of income are allowable deductions.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-examine the issue of CG Vak being a comparable company and to recompute its profit level indicator margin. Regarding interest on delayed receivables, the Tribunal rejected the DRP's direction to use SBI short-term deposit rates and remanded the matter for benchmarking as per the Act and Rules, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The issue of capacity utilization was also remanded to the TPO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the losses incurred by certain dissolved partnership firms, which were taken over by the assessee as a sole proprietor, should be allowed. The total income of the assessee needs to be computed by clubbing these losses.
The Tribunal held that the losses incurred by certain dissolved partnership firms, which were taken over by the assessee as a sole proprietor, should be allowed. The total income of the assessee needs to be computed by clubbing these losses.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to upload objections. Given that a similar issue regarding depreciation on land had been decided in the assessee's favor in its own case, the Tribunal remanded all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the losses incurred by certain dissolved partnership firms, which were taken over by the assessee as a sole proprietor, should be allowed. The total income of the assessee needs to be computed by clubbing these losses.
The Tribunal held that the losses incurred by certain dissolved partnership firms, which were taken over by the assessee as a sole proprietor, should be allowed. The total income of the assessee needs to be computed by clubbing these losses.
The Tribunal held that the losses incurred by certain dissolved partnership firms, which were taken over by the assessee as a sole proprietor, should be allowed. The total income of the assessee needs to be computed by clubbing these losses.
The Tribunal held that the losses incurred by certain dissolved partnership firms, which were taken over by the assessee as a sole proprietor, should be allowed. The total income of the assessee needs to be computed by clubbing these losses.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in not considering the assessee's submissions on filters and comparables when the matter was set aside. It also allowed the ground regarding commission expenses, relying on its own prior decision, and allowed miscellaneous expenses after noting the assessee provided details and TDS was deducted.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in not considering the assessee's submissions on filters and comparables when the matter was set aside. It also allowed the ground regarding commission expenses, relying on its own prior decision, and allowed miscellaneous expenses after noting the assessee provided details and TDS was deducted.
The High Court found that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) had not recorded valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment when issuing the notice for reopening. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was deemed unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is not retrospective and does not apply to the relevant assessment years. The assessee is entitled to deduction if payments were made before the due date of filing the return.