Loading ITAT cases…
665 orders · Page 14 of 14
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000 are not maintainable.
The Tribunal found a contradiction in the assessee's submissions to the DRP and the ITAT regarding the admission of a Permanent Establishment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeals and remanded them back to the DRP to ascertain the admission of PE and decide accordingly.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, providing reasons, even if the assessee did not appear. The dismissal for non-prosecution without considering merits was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that Nokia Corporation did not have a fixed place PE in India as the 'right to use' or 'disposal' test was not satisfied. The Tribunal also found no material to support the existence of a Service PE. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee on the existence of PE and taxability of software and R&D activities were allowed.
The Tribunal held that Nokia Corporation did not have a fixed place PE in India as the 'right to use' or 'disposal' test was not satisfied. The Tribunal also found no material to support the existence of a Service PE. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee on the existence of PE and taxability of software and R&D activities were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, are applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000 are not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that Nokia Corporation did not have a fixed place PE in India as the 'right to use' or 'disposal' test was not satisfied. The Tribunal also found no material to support the existence of a Service PE. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee on the existence of PE and taxability of software and R&D activities were allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenses, finding that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving their genuineness. Regarding salary expenses, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance, considering it sufficient relief.
The Tribunal found a contradiction in the assessee's submissions to the DRP and the ITAT regarding the admission of a Permanent Establishment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeals and remanded them back to the DRP to ascertain the admission of PE and decide accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the presumption of service of notice sent by speed post, especially when the addresses were not disputed, was valid. However, acknowledging the lack of evidence regarding the fair market value of the land as of April 1, 1981, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which enhances the monetary limit for filing appeals, is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which enhanced the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs. The tax effect in this case was below this limit.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The penalty appeal was dismissed as not pressed.