Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal held that providing fashion forecasts and market trends does not constitute technical services. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that since additional evidence was filed before it, which was not considered by the lower authorities, the matter should be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the additional evidence and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the CIT(A) had allowed the appeal without addressing key issues like depreciation and capital gains, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that providing fashion forecasts and market trends does not constitute technical services. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source under Section 195.
The ITAT allowed the deduction for ISO certification expenses, holding it to be revenue expenditure. For bad debts, the ITAT upheld the disallowance. For conveyance and travelling expenses, the ITAT restricted the disallowance to 7.5%.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years, without any new material or allegation of non-disclosure by the assessee, is not justified. The Assessing Officer cannot re-examine material already available during the original assessment to reopen the case.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to ESI and PF must be deposited within the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authority's order, which was confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal held that letting out an auditorium for coaching classes, even with fees, is not necessarily outside the society's charitable objects, especially when the funds are used for charitable purposes. The Tribunal found no justification to deny exemption.
The Tribunal held that letting out an auditorium for coaching classes, even with fees, is not necessarily outside the society's charitable objects, especially when the funds are used for charitable purposes. The Tribunal found no justification to deny exemption.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the nature of services rendered and the existence of a PE. It was unclear how the assessee tested signal quality after 2004 if equipment was dismantled.