Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 7 of 9
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merit instead of dismissing it for want of prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since all the quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) does not survive. Therefore, the revenue's appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice for penalty was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies selected by the TPO were functionally dissimilar or had significantly disproportionate turnovers compared to the assessee, violating principles of comparability. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of these comparables and allowed for the reconstruction of financial data for another comparable.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee is directed to appear and substantiate its claims, failing which the CIT(A) can pass an order as per law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(34) and Section 10(38) as the SARA Fund is a pass-through vehicle. The conditions for exemption are to be complied with at the level of the venture capital undertaking, not the investor.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to consider forex fluctuations as operating income/expense and to exclude Persistent Systems Ltd. from the comparable list due to functional dissimilarity. The Tribunal also upheld the inclusion of Thinksoft Global Services Ltd. as a comparable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and could not dismiss it solely on account of non-prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to consider forex fluctuations as operating income/expense and to exclude Persistent Systems Ltd. from the comparable list due to functional dissimilarity. The Tribunal also upheld the inclusion of Thinksoft Global Services Ltd. as a comparable.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and decide on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits and could not dismiss it solely on account of non-prosecution. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to appear and substantiate its claims.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and present its arguments.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed, given the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. This dismissal is conditional upon the successful resolution of the dispute under the scheme.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and requested the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the transactions involved the transfer of copyrighted articles, not the copyright itself, and therefore, the payments did not constitute royalty income. Consequently, the business income was not taxable in India.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 ITAT ordered the appeal to be consigned to records and treated as dismissed. However, this dismissal is conditional upon the successful resolution of the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn, and the Revenue's appeal was rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and decided to consign the appeal to records and treat it as dismissed. This dismissal is 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 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT to Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the transactions involved the transfer of copyrighted articles, not the copyright itself, and therefore, the payments did not constitute royalty income. Consequently, the business income was not taxable in India.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.