Loading ITAT cases…
399 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on dies for new model development and on TPM/ISO certification was revenue in nature. The AO's disallowance was not justified as the issue was covered by previous decisions of the High Court and ITAT in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances for exchange fluctuation loss and warranty expenses, following its own prior decisions. For the ALP issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on specific directions.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was validly served upon the assessee through speed post in 2002, as evidenced by the speed post receipt and the fact that the letter was not returned unserved. The assessee's claim of migration to the UK and non-receipt of the order was not substantiated.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the lower authorities. It found that the foreign travel was not related to the assessee's business and that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan.
The Tribunal noted that in previous assessment years, it was consistently held that the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Consequently, grounds related to the absence of a PE and the non-applicability of Section 92C were dismissed. The matter of profits attributable to the branch was restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation based on prior ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal noted that in previous assessment years, it was consistently held that the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Consequently, grounds related to the absence of a PE and the non-applicability of Section 92C were dismissed. The matter of profits attributable to the branch was restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation based on prior ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and various judicial precedents, treated the appeals as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal clarified that the appeals could be recalled if the assessee later provides satisfactory reasons for non-appearance.
The Tribunal, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and various judicial precedents, treated the appeals as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal clarified that the appeals could be recalled if the assessee later provides satisfactory reasons for non-appearance.
The Tribunal, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and various judicial precedents, decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal could be recalled if the assessee provides satisfactory reasons for non-appearance.
The Tribunal, in the absence of any objection from the Revenue, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for re-examination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to produce further evidence. The Tribunal noted that the criminal case's outcome was not fully established as proof of forgery.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's agreement to additions to avoid litigation does not absolve them from penalty, especially when the additions were detected during scrutiny. However, for the ad-hoc addition on unverifiable expenses, it was not considered a case of concealment.
The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 63,03,241 under Section 40A(3) as payments were made in cash without falling under exceptions. However, the addition of Rs. 19,20,758 on account of the outstanding balance was deleted due to duplicity of addition.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of loss on silver trading was based on conjectures as the revenue failed to determine the purity of silver during the survey. The ad-hoc disallowance on expenses was restricted based on previous year's assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned order as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-appearance and concluded that the assessee was no longer interested in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel admitted the appeal was incorrectly filed and requested it be dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal accepted this submission.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper enquiry and the CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee appeared to have lost interest in prosecuting the appeal due to non-appearance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted in the quantum proceedings by a previous order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.
The Tribunal allowed the inclusion of certain comparable companies rejected by the TPO and directed the TPO to re-examine the risk adjustment claim, allowing for suitable adjustments. The penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal held that brand building expenses, if India-specific and not providing enduring benefit to associated enterprises, are not subject to adjustment. Issues regarding provision for commission on sales were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, noting the identical facts and circumstances as a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. Both the assessee's counsel and the Revenue's representative agreed with this course of action.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude DEPB receipts from the calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC, following the principle of consistency and previous rulings. The Tribunal also held that royalty payments for technical know-how were revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and concluded that the assessee was no longer interested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that marketing support services provided for India-specific products do not warrant adjustment as no benefit arises to the associated enterprise. It also remanded the issue of provision for commission on sales to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as it was based on a 'change of opinion' by the Assessing Officer. Furthermore, the reasons for reopening did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that brand building expenses, if India-specific and not providing enduring benefit to associated enterprises, are not subject to adjustment. Issues regarding provision for commission on sales were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in refusing registration based on Section 13(1)(b), as this section applies at the assessment stage for exemption, not at the registration stage under Section 12AA. The Tribunal found that the trust had composite objects, both charitable and religious, and that not all objects were solely for the benefit of a particular community.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be pressed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that brand building expenses, if India-specific and not providing enduring benefit to associated enterprises, are not subject to adjustment. Issues regarding provision for commission on sales were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were void-ab-initio as they were initiated on a non-existing entity. It also addressed various grounds related to Section 10A deductions and transfer pricing adjustments.
The tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.