Loading ITAT cases…
118 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the management fee paid to the associated enterprise was a genuine business expense. It also ruled that the advertisement and publicity expenses incurred by the assessee were wholly and exclusively for its business and should be allowed in full.
The Tribunal held that Infosys BPO Ltd. should be excluded as a comparable due to its 'giant' status. It also directed that provision for bad and doubtful debts should be treated as operating expenses for e4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd. and that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss for ICRA Techno Analytics Limited needs re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is the owner and sole beneficiary of the 'MakeMyTrip' brand, as evidenced by the trademark registration. It further found that AMP expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the assessee's business and were not capital in nature, and that benefits from IPO listing did not accrue to the parent company.
The Tribunal held that the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for medical equipment cannot be determined at nil and restored the issue to the AO/TPO for further substantiation by the assessee. Regarding interest on outstanding receivables, the Tribunal held that no adjustment is warranted as it is subsumed in working capital adjustments and considering the collection period.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which set a monetary limit for departmental appeals. The appeal was deemed not maintainable due to the low tax effect.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. This was done in light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in light of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which set a monetary limit for appeals.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to ₹50 lakhs.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT to ₹50 lakhs.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals to the ITAT to ₹50 lakhs.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This was in light of the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019 which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to ₹50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on compulsory acquisition of land is in the nature of compensation and is therefore exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. The earlier contrary judgment was distinguished.
The Tribunal held that the APA entered into by the taxpayer with the CBDT has persuasive value for the assessment year in question, especially since there was no change in the Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR). The Tribunal also directed the deletion of interest under Section 234B as the return was filed within the extended due date.
The Tribunal held that payments below Rs. 10,000/- to certain individuals were not subject to TDS under Section 194H, and thus the disallowance for these amounts was deleted. For other payments exceeding Rs. 10,000/-, the disallowance was restricted to 30% of the expenses, treating the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) as curative.
The Tribunal held that the AO/TPO/DRP erred in disallowing travelling and conveyance expenses without proper consideration of the taxpayer's explanation and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication. Regarding transfer pricing issues, the Tribunal found that the approach of the revenue authorities was erroneous and remitted certain issues back to the TPO/DRP/AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the APA entered into by the taxpayer with the CBDT has persuasive value for the assessment year in question, especially since there was no change in the Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR). The Tribunal also directed the deletion of interest under Section 234B as the return was filed within the extended due date.
The Tribunal held that the APA entered into by the taxpayer with the CBDT has persuasive value for the assessment year in question, especially since there was no change in the Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR). The Tribunal also directed the deletion of interest under Section 234B as the return was filed within the extended due date.
The Tribunal held that the AO/TPO/DRP erred in disallowing travelling and conveyance expenses without proper consideration of the taxpayer's explanation and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication. Regarding transfer pricing issues, the Tribunal found that the approach of the revenue authorities was erroneous and remitted certain issues back to the TPO/DRP/AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the APA entered into by the taxpayer with the CBDT has persuasive value for the assessment year in question, especially since there was no change in the Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR). The Tribunal also directed the deletion of interest under Section 234B as the return was filed within the extended due date.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified as the statement of a third party (Chairman of the medical college) used against the assessee was not confronted to the assessee, nor was cross-examination allowed. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the notice to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay in pronouncing the order was due to the nationwide lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which constituted an extraordinary circumstance. Therefore, the 90-day period for pronouncement of the order was to be excluded.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid to directors was justified based on their qualifications, contributions, and board resolutions. The payment was in line with past practices and did not indicate tax avoidance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO had accepted the assessee's sales and purchases disclosed in the Trading Account. The Tribunal agreed that only a profit rate should be applied to any undisclosed sales, not the entire amount, and that ad-hoc disallowances without specific reasons are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated because the AO's notice did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars) the penalty was being levied under. The Tribunal also noted the absence of specific satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing evidence of identity, genuineness, and capacity of the lender, M/s Index Securities and Research Pvt Ltd. The additions were based on surmises and conjectures, ignoring direct evidence.
The Tribunal held that the delay in pronouncing the order was due to the nationwide lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which constituted an extraordinary circumstance. Therefore, the 90-day period for pronouncement of the order was to be excluded.
The Tribunal held that the commission paid to directors was justified based on their qualifications, contributions, and board resolutions. The payment was in line with past practices and did not indicate tax avoidance.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs specified by the CBDT. The CBDT circular also clarified that it applies to all pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the guarantee commission paid is neither 'Interest' under Article 11 nor 'Fees for Technical Services' under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. The Tribunal found no permanent establishment of the non-resident in India.
The Tribunal held that the guarantee commission paid is neither 'Interest' under Article 11 nor 'Fees for Technical Services' under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. The Tribunal found no permanent establishment of the non-resident in India.
The Tribunal found that while prior non-compliance was unacceptable, the fire incident might have caused subsequent non-compliance. Since the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to explain the transactions, the case was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not strike off inappropriate words and failed to specify the limb under which penalty was levied. Additionally, the Tribunal found the addition itself to be debatable on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CPC rectified the mistake subsequent to the appeal filing. Consequently, the grievance stated in the appeal no longer survived.
The CPC rectified the mistake, rendering the assessee's grievance in the appeal moot. Therefore, the appeal has become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable because the show-cause notice issued by the AO did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings to be bad in law.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the conversion of the case from limited to complete scrutiny was in violation of CBDT instructions, as it was based on mere suspicion and lacked cogent material. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as a nullity.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition in the hands of the company was deleted based on an arbitration award and court upholding it, the protective addition in the assessee's hands, which was solely based on Section 179 of the Act, also stood nullified.
Both parties agreed that the issues required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, in view of the consent of both parties, remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, examination, and adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made by the AO on account of foreign exchange expenditure. The AO's disallowance was found to be a double disallowance to the extent of Rs. 23,554,483, as this amount was already adjusted by the TPO in arriving at the ALP.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had misinterpreted the ITAT's directions and erred in reopening the assessment on the same facts already considered. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to properly appreciate the facts and ignored the assessee's reliance on his own cash book. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO issued the notice under Section 148 mechanically and without application of mind, as it was based on the erroneous premise that no return had been filed, when in fact a return was filed prior to the notice. Therefore, the notice and the subsequent assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 50 lakhs, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that both issues raised by the department were already decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench in assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, the department's appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application based on superfluous reasoning. The tribunal emphasized that the 12AA registration already validated the society's genuine activities, and reasons like maintaining FDRs for affiliation or lack of donation history are not grounds for rejection.