Loading ITAT cases…
544 orders · Page 7 of 11
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not attracted when the assessee has not earned any dividend income. Making a disallowance mechanically without recording dissatisfaction with the assessee's working is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee, finding it necessary for substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after thorough verification of the new evidence and the assessee's claims.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that the expatriate employees did not constitute a fixed place PE of the assessee in India as they were effectively employed and controlled by the Indian subsidiary. Consequently, no income could be attributed to such an alleged PE.
The Tribunal held that the expatriate employees did not constitute a fixed place PE of the assessee in India, as they were under the control and supervision of the Indian subsidiary. Consequently, no income could be attributed to such an alleged PE.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not tenable and directed their deletion. It also allowed the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 to the assessees, following High Court clarifications regarding the retrospective cancellation of registration.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed in limine for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear or be represented. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents supporting this decision.
The Tribunal, following its previous order and a Supreme Court decision, held that the payments were taxable under Section 44BB of the Act, not Section 44DA. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the High Court's decision on Section 153C proceedings meant those grounds were dismissed. For other issues, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated facts or relied on materials, leading to a remand for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The CIT (DR) did not press the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already quashed the reassessment notice in the assessee's own case based on the satisfaction of the arm's length principle, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent orders were automatically cancelled.
The Tribunal noted that the DRP had not properly considered the assessee's objections and the relevant agreement in the prior year. Therefore, the current issue was also set aside to the DRP/AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the property, having been held with the intention to let out and efforts made to do so, falls under Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the benefit of vacancy allowance should be granted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were unsustainable. This was based on a Supreme Court ruling in the assessee's own case, which stated that once the arm's length price procedure is followed, no further profit can be attributed to a PE in India.
The Tribunal held that the High Court's decision on Section 153C proceedings meant those grounds were dismissed. For other issues, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated facts or relied on materials, leading to a remand for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the High Court's decision on Section 153C proceedings meant those grounds were dismissed. For other issues, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated facts or relied on materials, leading to a remand for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the High Court's decision on Section 153C proceedings meant those grounds were dismissed. For other issues, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated facts or relied on materials, leading to a remand for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the High Court's decision on Section 153C proceedings meant those grounds were dismissed. For other issues, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated facts or relied on materials, leading to a remand for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal observed that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the High Court's decision on Section 153C proceedings meant those grounds were dismissed. For other issues, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated facts or relied on materials, leading to a remand for fresh consideration by the AO.
The Tribunal held that income of a charitable trust must be computed on commercial principles, and losses arising from surplus application of income should be allowed to be carried forward and set off against future income. This is supported by High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the non-service of notice was solely attributable to the assessee's conduct. Since the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.