Loading ITAT cases…
808 orders · Page 7 of 17
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee provided explanations regarding the valuation method used by the survey team and the lump-sum estimation of stock. These explanations were not rebutted by the revenue.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions outlined in Circular No. 3/2018 were met.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal did not fall under any of the exceptions for contesting cases with low tax effect as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal found that while the capital gain was misconstrued, the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments. However, a disallowance for administrative expenses was deemed necessary.
The Tribunal held that certain selling and distribution expenses, trade discounts, and commissions should be excluded from AMP expenditure. It also allowed the appeal regarding the taxability of unutilized subsidies, following its own prior decisions affirmed by the High Court.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on computations not produced before the Tribunal and not confronted to the AO/TPO. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after confronting the material to the AO/TPO and obtaining a remand report.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the property is leasehold and if Section 50C is applicable. The AO was directed to consider the decision in Vandana D. Shetty vs. ITO.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order and, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's authority is limited to determining ALP and not to decide the existence or benefit of services, which falls under the AO's domain. The AO made additions without independently examining deductibility under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to decide in light of the Hon'ble High Court's observations. The High Court had held notices for AYs 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006 unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal held that certain selling and distribution expenses, trade discounts, and commissions should be excluded from AMP expenditure. It also allowed the appeal regarding the taxability of unutilized subsidies, following its own prior decisions affirmed by the High Court.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to decide in light of the Hon'ble High Court's observations. The High Court had held notices for AYs 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006 unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to decide in light of the Hon'ble High Court's observations. The High Court had held notices for AYs 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006 unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals, dismissing them as infructuous. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if the tax effect exceeded the limit or if specific conditions in the circular were met.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of one comparable company due to its different business model and directed the inclusion of another company after verifying its financial data. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance made under Section 14A, finding it unwarranted as the assessee had no borrowed funds.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The circular is binding on income-tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the denial of capital utilization and risk adjustments by the TPO/DRP was mechanical and lacked specific findings. It also directed the deletion of adjustments on account of receivables, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the transactions in shares held in the investment portfolio are assessable under the head 'capital gain'. It also ruled that no disallowance of interest can be made under Section 14A if the assessee has a net interest income. The deletion of disallowance on DEMAT charges was affirmed, considering the CBDT clarification.
The Tribunal held that the transactions in shares held in the investment portfolio are assessable under the head 'capital gain'. It also ruled that no disallowance of interest can be made under Section 14A if the assessee has a net interest income. The deletion of disallowance on DEMAT charges was affirmed, considering the CBDT clarification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15)(b) as no transfer pricing adjustment was made. Therefore, the AO was not competent to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1), making the final assessment order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court and the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP by the Apex Court, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15)(b) as no transfer pricing adjustment was made. Therefore, the AO was not competent to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1), making the final assessment order invalid.
The Tribunal held that since the payment made by the assessee to ESPN India for soliciting advertisements was accepted as an arm's length price by the Transfer Pricing Officer, no further attribution of profit to the assessee's Indian operations was required. Consequently, the addition made on account of profit attribution was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the payment made by the assessee to ESPN India for soliciting advertisements was accepted as an arm's length price by the Transfer Pricing Officer, no further attribution of profit to the assessee's Indian operations was required. Consequently, the addition made on account of profit attribution was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted a CBDT circular directing that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. The CIT(DR) did not press the appeal in light of this circular.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for filing appeals before the ITAT. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15)(b) as no transfer pricing adjustment was made. Therefore, the AO was not competent to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1), making the final assessment order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The lender HUF had sufficient assets and was assessed to tax, and the loan was advanced through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed with reference to additions made under normal provisions when the tax payable under normal provisions is less than the tax payable under Section 115JB, as per the Delhi High Court judgment and CBDT Circular.
The Tribunal held that the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue was to be allowed. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed as it was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular.