Loading ITAT cases…
581 orders · Page 6 of 12
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was crucial to the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication after considering the new evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to prove that the oil well was at the disposal of the assessee, a prerequisite for establishing a PE under Article 5(2)(f) of the DTAA. Consequently, the assessee's income could not be taxed under that article.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of expense disallowances, finding them arbitrary and unsubstantiated. For the deemed dividend issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for further verification and proper adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of expense disallowances, finding them arbitrary and unsubstantiated. For the deemed dividend issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for further verification and proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of expense disallowances, finding them arbitrary and unsubstantiated. For the deemed dividend issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for further verification and proper adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of expense disallowances, finding them arbitrary and unsubstantiated. For the deemed dividend issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for further verification and proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's retraction and explanation regarding inflated construction costs were not substantiated. The initial surrender made during the search, supported by seized documents, was considered valid. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s deletions and restored the AO's additions.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was crucial to the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication after considering the new evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the 'berry ratio' is the most appropriate profit-level indicator (PLI) for benchmarking the indenting transactions under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The matter was remanded to the TPO to re-examine the ALP using this method.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was crucial to the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication after considering the new evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal restored the issues of travelling expenses, salary to partners, business promotion expenses, and sales promotion expenses back to the lower authorities for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the submissions of the assessee were not properly considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was crucial to the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication after considering the new evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal restored the issues of travelling expenses, salary to partners, business promotion expenses, and sales promotion expenses back to the lower authorities for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the submissions of the assessee were not properly considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) erred in disregarding segmental results and adopting an entity-level approach for transfer pricing analysis. Segmental results need not be audited to be accepted, and the TPO should examine them.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparables due to functional dissimilarity and asset intensity differences, while remanding the issue of others for further verification. It also directed the Assessing Officer to recompute adjustments for foreign exchange fluctuations.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to low tax effect. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the addition related to unaccounted scrap sales but deleted the disallowance of interest under Section 14A, while upholding the disallowance of indirect expenses.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was crucial to the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication after considering the new evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Senior DR did not press the departmental appeal.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which has retrospective effect. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for appeals. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular specifies a monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental Appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the instructions of the Board. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal should have been filed before the ITAT Kolkata Bench, as the Assessing Officer was located in Kolkata. The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The department had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental Appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the instructions of the Board. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and provided reasons for the decision, even in the absence of the assessee. Dismissing the appeal solely for non-prosecution was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs should not be filed or pressed. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal in light of this circular.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was duly notified of the hearing date but failed to appear or request an adjournment. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Departmental Appeals were not maintainable as they were filed against the instructions of the Board. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the departmental appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which directs against filing appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits with reasons, even in the absence of the assessee, as per Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Dismissing for non-prosecution without deciding on merits was not sustainable.
The tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed because the assessee failed to appear and prosecute the appeal. The tribunal cited various precedents emphasizing the need for effective pursuit of an appeal beyond mere filing.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of adjusting payments under section 140A against interest payable under section 234B, the assessed tax should be computed based on the total income declared in the return. For section 234C, interest should be calculated on returned income, not assessed income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of being cheated by an office colleague does not negate the fact that the profit was earned in his name and was not declared. Therefore, the addition is justified.
The Tribunal held that the choice of PLI and the use of comparable data were debatable issues, especially considering the nascent stage of transfer pricing regulations at the time. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the facts needed verification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal followed its earlier order in the assessee's own case, which held that factoring charges are not interest and therefore, TDS provisions under Section 194A are not applicable. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the genuineness of cash sales and the nature of advances received from companies. The assessee was asked to provide necessary information to establish its claims, and the AO was to decide accordingly.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing him to decide the issue afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to appear and substantiate her case.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the genuineness of cash sales and the nature of advances received from companies. The assessee was asked to provide necessary information to establish its claims, and the AO was to decide accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was decided ex-parte without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the interest of justice requires that the assessee be given another chance to argue the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the instant appeal before it, as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular also mandates withdrawal or not pressing of such appeals.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and give reasons for the decision, as required by Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The dismissal for non-prosecution was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the arrangement was purely a supply of goods and purchase of material, not a works contract. Therefore, TDS provisions under Section 194C were not applicable, and no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could be made.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was restored for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing TDS returns due to initial technological glitches associated with the mandatory e-filing system. Therefore, the penalty levied was deleted.