Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 7 of 9
The Tribunal held that the intra-group services agreement should be viewed as a whole and not unbundled. It relied on its previous rulings for the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years and deleted the transfer pricing adjustment.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are only permissible if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153A were deemed null and void.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the actual ownership of the property in light of a settlement between the assessee and M/s Hira Realtors Pvt. Ltd., approved by the High Court, and then examine the source of investment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given the benefit of doubt regarding the non-receipt of the order. The delay was condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the addition made. The assured return was considered a part of the MOU and was brought to tax after considering the amount already disclosed by the assessee as profit on surrender of flats.
The Tribunal held that since the investments were in foreign companies and any dividend income or capital gains therefrom would be taxable in India, Section 14A and Rule 8D were not applicable. The disallowance made by the AO was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal, noting the repeated adjournments and the absence of the assessee at the final hearing, concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine as the depositors were assessed to tax, their creditworthiness was accepted, and the cash deposited was withdrawn from their bank accounts on the same day.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are only permissible if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153A were deemed null and void.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked any new tangible material. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue, which was based on the reopened assessment, did not survive.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as they were not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as they were not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as they were not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed in violation of the CBDT circular which has statutory force under Section 268A of the IT Act.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it violated CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which prescribes a pecuniary limit of Rs. 10 lacs for Revenue appeals to the ITAT. This circular has statutory force under Section 268A of the IT Act.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the AO failed to apply his mind to the material on record, as evidenced by the recording of two separate, identical reasons. The Tribunal quashed the assessment based on this jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that the AO's finding regarding the transaction date was factually incorrect, indicating a lack of application of mind. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that since the classification of income from share sales as capital gains versus business income is a debatable issue, and the assessee had disclosed all transaction details, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of Section 40A(3) disallowance to the AO for verification and dismissed the appeal regarding Section 68 additions. The appeal concerning low gross profit was not explicitly decided in the provided text, but the overall result indicates a partial allowance for the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were recorded without application of mind, making the reopening invalid. The Tribunal followed jurisdictional High Court judgments that require the AO to examine evidence before reopening.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had granted the deduction without properly examining the conditions of Section 10A, particularly regarding the manufacturing or production activity and export. The Tribunal set aside the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to prove that the donations were not anonymous. If the assessee fails to do so, the AO can proceed with the addition.
The Tribunal restored the AMP expenses issue to the AO/TPO for de novo consideration based on the Sony Ericsson judgment. The Tribunal upheld the DRP's deletion of the market-to-market loss, following the Supreme Court's decision in Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000 should not be filed or should be withdrawn.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies (Infosys BPO, TCS E-Serve International Ltd., TCS E-Serve Ltd., and Cosmic Global Ltd.) from the list of comparables used for benchmarking. The appeal was allowed in part, with consequential relief.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following relevant rules and judicial precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal without adjudicating on its merits.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that while the trust's objects were charitable, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual charitable activities to the CIT(E). However, to ensure justice, the matter was set aside to give the assessee another opportunity to demonstrate the genuineness of its activities.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a pecuniary limit for appeals to the ITAT. The circular has statutory force under Section 268A of the IT Act.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit should not be filed or pressed. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies (Infosys BPO, TCS E-Serve International Ltd., TCS E-Serve Ltd., and Cosmic Global Ltd.) from the list of comparables used for benchmarking. The appeal was allowed in part, with consequential relief.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 10 lakhs, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection, which was not pressed, was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the license fee paid by the assessee firm to RSCPL was a legitimate business expenditure. It reasoned that the payment was necessary for the assessee to continue its profession under the established name and goodwill, and that the revenue had not suffered any loss due to the arrangement.
The tribunal held that based on CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the department should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into merits.
The Tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant, dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. The assessees were informed of their liberty to request setting aside the order by explaining their non-appearance.
The Tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant, dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. The assessees were informed of their liberty to request setting aside the order by explaining their non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the license fee paid by the assessee firm to RSCPL was a legitimate business expenditure. It reasoned that the payment was necessary for the assessee to continue its profession under the established name and goodwill, and that the revenue had not suffered any loss due to the arrangement.
The Tribunal held that the license fee paid by the assessee firm to RSCPL was a legitimate business expenditure. It reasoned that the payment was necessary for the assessee to continue its profession under the established name and goodwill, and that the revenue had not suffered any loss due to the arrangement.