Loading ITAT cases…
431 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal.
The tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute was not resolved under the Act.
The Tribunal followed its own previous decision for AY 2010-11, which had allowed depreciation on goodwill and marked-to-market foreign exchange loss. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and decided to consign the appeal to records. The appeal was treated as dismissed, subject to the condition that it could be reinstituted if the dispute was not resolved under the Act.
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to consider the assessee's FAR (Functions, Assets, and Risks) for the current year in light of the APA (Advance Pricing Agreement). The assessee was instructed to provide necessary documents, and the TPO was to decide the issue by adopting the methodology agreed upon in the APA.
The tribunal noted that fresh appeals were filed against a subsequent order of the CIT(A). Therefore, the current appeals were rendered infructuous and were directed to be consigned to records.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Senior DR for the Department did not object to this request.
The Tribunal affirmed the deletion of the penalty. It was noted that the additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted by the Tribunal in earlier proceedings.
The tribunal noted that fresh appeals were filed against a subsequent order of the CIT(A). Therefore, the current appeals were rendered infructuous and were directed to be consigned to records.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Department, allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had conducted a detailed discussion on the merits of the case. Since the assessee claimed to have filed some details before the CIT(A) which were not considered, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on funds temporarily parked in FDRs, which are inextricably linked to the setting up of a capital asset (hotel), should be treated as capital receipts and set off against capital expenditure, not taxed as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory period, making the reassessment proceedings unsustainable. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the jewelry found in the current search was explained by the inventory from the 2007 search, as the total weight was less. The addition for unexplained jewelry was deleted. The disallowance of maintenance charges was also deleted as the assessee had correctly added it back in the computation of income.
The Tribunal held that FOREX fluctuation should be considered operating income, and prior period expenses should not be part of operating expenses for calculating the operating margin. Domestic revenue was confirmed to be excluded for benchmarking purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's dissatisfaction for invoking Rule 8D was not properly recorded, following its own previous decisions. For personal expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 1/20th of the expenses.
The Tribunal held that TCS-e-Serve Ltd. is not a valid comparable due to functional dissimilarity, lack of segmental information, significant risk profile, and large scale of operations with huge brand value. The assessee's appeal was allowed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not appropriate when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition as no expenditure can be disallowed against nil exempt income.
The Tribunal held that TCS-e-Serve Ltd. is not a valid comparable due to functional dissimilarity, lack of segmental information, significant risk profile, and large scale of operations with huge brand value. The assessee's appeal was allowed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the case of M/s Modern Dairy Ltd. based on the same seized documents were deleted by a coordinate bench, the additions made in the assessee's case could not survive. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal found that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was initiated. Additionally, for the A.Y. 2013-14, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, and the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to the assessment years in question. Therefore, these additions were beyond the scope of assessment under Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the case of M/s Modern Dairy Ltd. based on the same seized documents were deleted by a coordinate bench, the additions made in the assessee's case could not survive. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that FOREX fluctuation should be considered operating income, and prior period expenses should not be part of operating expenses for calculating the operating margin. Domestic revenue was confirmed to be excluded for benchmarking purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153A as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search pertaining to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee was crucial and should have been admitted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after admitting the additional evidence.
The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that the assessee was not the deemed owner of the West Tower for tax purposes. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that the assessee was not the deemed owner of the West Tower for tax purposes. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a demand notice and penalty proceedings along with the 'draft' assessment order effectively concluded the assessment proceedings prematurely. Consequently, all subsequent orders, including the final assessment order, were deemed non est (invalid).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny, and the reasons for selection did not include disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A. Therefore, the AO could not have made such a disallowance without converting the scrutiny to complete scrutiny with proper approval.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition. The purchases, though paid for in AY 2011-12, were debited to the P&L account in AY 2012-13. The AO had not doubted the receipt of goods or payment through banking channels, and the non-availability of suppliers did not automatically make the purchases unexplained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable and not commercial, following previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court. The income generated was considered necessary for operational and capital expenses of its research-based activities.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding depreciation on goodwill, following its own prior ruling. It also dismissed the revenue's appeal concerning the disallowance of employee referral pay, finding it to be a legitimate business expense. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition. The purchases, though paid for in AY 2011-12, were debited to the P&L account in AY 2012-13. The AO had not doubted the receipt of goods or payment through banking channels, and the non-availability of suppliers did not automatically make the purchases unexplained.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is admissible, following its own prior decision and Supreme Court/High Court precedents. It also upheld the DRP's deletion of disallowance for employee referral pay, finding it to be a legitimate business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that since the FCCDs were denominated in Indian Rupees and the investment was received in INR, the interest payment should be benchmarked using Indian interest rates, not LIBOR. The Tribunal noted that the DRP had allowed a similar claim in a subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of prior period expenses, following previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case. Similarly, the bond issue expenses were also held to be revenue in nature, based on the CIT(A)'s prior decision.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as the AO acted on suspicion and borrowed satisfaction without tangible material. The AO had failed to consider the assessee's original return and the assessment framed under Section 153A, which already disclosed and claimed exemption for the LTCG.
The Tribunal held that while the AO cannot entertain a claim not made via a revised return, appellate authorities can consider such claims. The loss from one eligible unit should not reduce the profit of another eligible unit for Section 80IC deduction.
The Tribunal, following its own prior decisions and High Court rulings, held that interest income earned on temporary parking of business funds and certain miscellaneous income items are eligible for deduction under Section 10A. The Tribunal also ruled that foreign exchange gains/losses should be treated as operating items.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the date of handing over seized material, the proceedings under Section 153C were bad in law. Furthermore, for other assessment years, the seized trial balance was not considered incriminating as it was accepted in a subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as the e-filing portal was indeed not functioning on the date of filing, as acknowledged by a subsequent CBDT circular. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities are charitable in nature and it is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act. This decision was based on consistent precedents from the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years.