Loading ITAT cases…
484 orders · Page 1 of 10
The Tribunal decided that the AMP expenses could not be treated as an international transaction without establishing an understanding or arrangement between the assessee and its AEs. It also held that the 'make available' clause in the DTAA was not met for the buying agency services.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable if no exempt income has been earned or received during the relevant assessment year. The disallowance made by the AO was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the MAP resolution addressed PE issues but the appeal also included royalty issues. Since the extent to which the MAP resolution covered royalty was unclear, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including the company's audited accounts and cash flow statements, demonstrating that the Rs. 21 lakhs belonged to Prakash Infrastructure and Developers Ltd. The Tribunal found no reason to reject the assessee's contention, especially since a similar claim for Rs. 4 lakhs was accepted by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bars the continuation of pending suits. Therefore, the appeals cannot be proceeded with until the insolvency process is completed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A needed reconsideration. It also remanded the issue of interest on Fixed Deposits for verification of business nexus. However, it upheld the deletion of disallowances for royalty, model fee, and provision for warranty, and deleted the transfer pricing adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was justified. It noted that Rule 8D is applicable from AY 2008-09 and that the 'dominant purpose' test for strategic investments is no longer relevant post the Supreme Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was hit by the CBDT instruction due to low tax effect. The Departmental Representative did not provide any information regarding exceptions to the circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal decided the issues in the current assessment year mutatis mutandis to the issues decided for assessment year 2011-12. The appeals were allowed partly for statistical purposes, indicating that some grounds were accepted while others were not fully or at all.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay to be bonafide and beyond their control. It was held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in the interest of substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that payments made to an unapproved gratuity fund are deductible under Section 37. It also found that contributions to a Group Gratuity Policy with LIC are allowable as business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bars the continuation of pending suits. Therefore, the appeals cannot be proceeded with until the insolvency process is completed.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bars the continuation of pending suits. Therefore, the appeals cannot be proceeded with until the insolvency process is completed.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bars the continuation of pending suits. Therefore, the appeals cannot be proceeded with until the insolvency process is completed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it was hit by a CBDT instruction regarding the minimum tax effect for filing appeals. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfy the condition of admitting undisclosed income in a statement under section 132(4) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271AAA.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without deciding on the merits of the case. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits with cogent reasons.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in preceding years were decided in favour of the assessee, remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer/TPO. The Tribunal found that the TPO's analysis of working capital adjustment and the interest rate used was not clear and restored the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the trust's business activities were incidental to its charitable objects, and therefore, it was entitled to exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal also noted that certain disallowances made by the AO were already self-disallowed by the assessee.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their formal application. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bars the continuation of pending suits. Therefore, the appeals cannot be proceeded with until the insolvency process is completed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's share transactions, due to their volume, frequency, and other factors, constituted business income rather than capital gains. This decision followed a similar ruling for the prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that if the impact of extended credit period on working capital is factored into the pricing/profitability under TNMM, then any credit period allowed to an AE is subsumed. Therefore, a separate benchmarking for interest on receivables is not required.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that license fees paid on a revenue-sharing basis are a normal business expense and should be treated as revenue expenditure. The decision relied on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in similar cases.
The Tribunal upheld the penalties levied by the lower authorities. It found that the assessee failed to provide any valid explanation or evidence for non-compliance with notices or for the additions made to its income, and also failed to update its address in the PAN database.
The Tribunal, relying on its own earlier order and the Hon'ble High Court's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the credit of share capital and the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced compensation is exempt from tax and directed the Assessing Officer to treat it as such. It also restored the issue of TDS credit to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the difference between gross receipts in service tax returns and the profit and loss account cannot automatically lead to an addition. It directed the AO to re-examine the issue after the assessee provides reconciliation and evidence for reimbursements and timing differences in taxation.
The Tribunal upheld the penalties levied by the lower authorities. It found that the assessee failed to provide any valid explanation or evidence for non-compliance with notices or for the additions made to its income, and also failed to update its address in the PAN database.
The Tribunal held that the moratorium declared under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 bars the continuation of pending suits. Therefore, the appeals cannot be proceeded with until the insolvency process is completed.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and pass an order in accordance with law after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Exemptions)'s decision, finding that the society's by-laws were general and did not exclusively point to charitable activities. The Tribunal also noted the society's failure to file the required audit report.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. The assessee is directed to appear and provide necessary documents, failing which the AO can pass an order as per law.
The Tribunal held that since the genuineness of the payment and the identity of the payee were not doubted by the authorities below, and the sale deeds were registered, the rigors of Section 40A(3) were discharged. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex parte orders. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated after four years were erroneous.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the classification of expenditure as revenue or capital was a matter of opinion and the assessee had furnished all particulars. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision on the same issue for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal found that the issue of registration cancellation was pending further clarification from the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the taxability of the assessee's income should be decided after the fate of the registration is determined.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with notices. The assessee failed to provide any reasonable cause for non-furnishing the information and obstructed the investigation process.