Loading ITAT cases…
71 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the issue back to the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh consideration. The JAO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of set off of brought forward losses cannot be denied solely due to belated filing of the return. Regarding corpus donations, the Tribunal found that some receipts contained clear directions from donors, contrary to the AO's observation.
The Tribunal heard the Ld. D.R., who did not object to the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee should have been provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice, the issue is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and decision.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute pertained to the addition of Rs. 74,67,614/- made after the DRP's direction, applying a LIBOR rate, despite invoices being raised in CNY. The DRP had observed that the assessee could not demonstrate why a deviation from the standard 30-day credit period was warranted. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's arguments regarding RBI announcements for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and directed the AO/TPO/DRP to consider the applicability of these announcements to the extent they are relevant to the assessee's case. Both parties agreed to apply 6 months LIBOR plus 300 basis points for calculating interest on delayed receivables, considering a 30-day credit period. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, indicating a remand or reconsideration based on the applicability of the RBI announcements.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal and the quantification of tax payment under the VSV Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of set off of brought forward losses cannot be denied solely due to belated filing of the return. Regarding corpus donations, the Tribunal found that some receipts contained clear directions from donors, contrary to the AO's observation.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the assessee from its Indian customers were indeed in the nature of revenue and taxable in India. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not discharged its onus to prove that these receipts were purely reimbursements of expenses. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the expenses were incurred solely on behalf of the customers without any element of profit. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the taxability of these amounts. Regarding the expenses, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not substantiated the allowability of all the claimed expenses. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the allowability of expenses in light of the findings regarding the nature of receipts and the substantiation of expenses. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, which held that payments for interconnectivity services are not royalty. Therefore, the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the appeal by directing the credit of TDS as reflected in Form 26AS, as the revenue did not dispute the income itself. The revenue's appeal against this decision was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the 96-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), holding that the delay was not intentional and was due to genuine reasons, applying the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after noting sufficient cause and the lack of objection from the DR. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not considered a rectification order passed by the CPC, which had resolved part of the assessee's grievance. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the 96-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), holding that the delay was not intentional and was due to genuine reasons, applying the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the 96-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), holding that the delay was not intentional and was due to genuine reasons, applying the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable for penalty under Section 271B for not maintaining proper books of account and not getting them audited as required by Section 44AB, especially since the turnover exceeded Rs. 2 crores. The argument that no books of account were maintained was found to be contrary to evidence like the list of debtors and VAT returns filed.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in directing the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 263 as the AO had not initiated them in the reassessment order. The Tribunal noted that the additions were made under Section 69C, and the penalty proceedings based on this were beyond the Pr. CIT's jurisdiction. The order of the Pr. CIT was set aside.
The Tribunal, based on an affidavit from the assessee's mother, accepted that Rs. 6,00,000/- was her savings and also extended the benefit to the remaining Rs. 3,00,500/- deposited by the assessee. Consequently, the entire addition made under Section 69A was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the transaction of management support services is separate and independent and cannot be aggregated with other transactions. It also noted that the assessee failed to sufficiently demonstrate the receipt of services and their benefits, and the costs appeared to be shareholder services.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not considered the papers filed by the assessee. It restored the matter to the AO with a direction to allow the claim if the assessee could establish that the dividend income was indeed from mutual funds and thus exempt from taxation.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not considered the papers filed by the assessee. It restored the matter to the AO with a direction to allow the claim if the assessee could establish that the dividend income was indeed from mutual funds and thus exempt from taxation.