Loading ITAT cases…
427 orders · Page 8 of 9
The tribunal noted that grounds related to transfer pricing with US AEs were resolved via MAP and dismissed as withdrawn. The remaining grounds were to be settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, leading to the appeals being consigned to records.
The tribunal noted that grounds related to transfer pricing with US AEs were resolved via MAP and dismissed as withdrawn. The remaining grounds were to be settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, leading to the appeals being consigned to records.
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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was due to the assessee opting to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT circular regarding the monetary limit for filing appeals and the fact that the appeal file could not be traced.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions, setting aside the TPO's adjustment. Regarding the foreign exchange loss and stock valuation, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide crucial details regarding the services rendered and expenses incurred for a specific project (DMIC). Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with another opportunity to submit documents.
The assessee has filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. If the settlement fails for technical reasons, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for restoration of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that earning of exempt income is a prerequisite for disallowance under Section 14A, following jurisdictional High Court rulings. Therefore, no disallowance was warranted in this case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's higher profit margins already factored in the impact of delayed receivables. Since the assessee did not charge interest on overdue debts from third parties and was a debt-free company, no separate adjustment for interest on receivables was warranted.
The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A) that the appeal was not maintainable due to non-payment of admitted tax. However, to provide a chance for fresh adjudication, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) subject to the assessee paying the admitted tax by a specific date.
The Tribunal held that education cess is allowable as a deduction, following the Bombay High Court's decision. The issue of bad debts written back was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be computed based on investments yielding exempt income, following the precedent set in the Vireet Investments case. The disallowance was directed to be computed at 0.5% on the specific investment yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) is not applicable because the assessee company was not a shareholder in the lending companies. Furthermore, one of the loans was an opening balance and not received during the year.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) is not applicable because the assessee company was not a shareholder in the lending companies. Furthermore, one of the loans was an opening balance and not received during the year.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous. This was because the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and filed the necessary forms.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the quantum additions on similar issues, including SAR expenses, had been allowed by the Tribunal in a related case. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with liberty to approach the Tribunal if Form 3 was not issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is not attracted when the assessee has not debited the cost of land in its profit and loss account and has not claimed any deduction for it. The payment was also considered a reimbursement under a collaboration agreement.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked specific details regarding the accommodation entries, parties involved, dates, and amounts. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the statement of one purchaser confirmed the payment and return of funds, suggesting the assessee had discharged his onus for that transaction. For other transactions, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination with adherence to natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was not obtained from the proper authority as required by Section 151(2). Consequently, all subsequent proceedings and orders were deemed a nullity.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's request and the Revenue's lack of objection. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal consigned the appeal to records and treated it as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can approach the Tribunal for reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, finding it to be primary evidence relevant to the source of funds. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of this evidence.
The Tribunal, following High Court directions, found that 15% of the revenue from bookings made in India was attributable to the Indian Permanent Establishment (PE). Appeals for AY 2006-07 were dismissed on merits, while others were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal, following High Court directions, found that 15% of the revenue from bookings made in India was attributable to the Indian Permanent Establishment (PE). Appeals for AY 2006-07 were dismissed on merits, while others were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind and proceeded on incorrect premises regarding the filing of the return of income. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the payment of agency commission for services rendered outside India to non-resident agents is not subject to tax withholding under Section 195. Consequently, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Settlement Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the assessee's case from the date of application, rendering the CIT's order under Section 263 invalid. Furthermore, the possibility of immunity from penalty and prosecution granted by the Settlement Commission did not inherently make the order prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal, following High Court directions, found that 15% of the revenue from bookings made in India was attributable to the Indian Permanent Establishment (PE). Appeals for AY 2006-07 were dismissed on merits, while others were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the Settlement Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over the assessee's case from the date of application, rendering the CIT's order under Section 263 invalid. Furthermore, the possibility of immunity from penalty and prosecution granted by the Settlement Commission did not inherently make the order prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals, making the current appeal below the threshold.
The Tribunal, following High Court directions, found that 15% of the revenue from bookings made in India was attributable to the Indian Permanent Establishment (PE). Appeals for AY 2006-07 were dismissed on merits, while others were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal, following High Court directions, found that 15% of the revenue from bookings made in India was attributable to the Indian Permanent Establishment (PE). Appeals for AY 2006-07 were dismissed on merits, while others were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Accentia Technologies Ltd. due to functional dissimilarity (KPO vs. ITeS) and Acropetal Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. based on previous years' findings of functional dissimilarity, with no change in facts.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. 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 held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including confirmations, PAN, bank statements, and ledger accounts, to establish the genuineness, creditworthiness, and capacity of the directors to provide the loans. The Assessing Officer failed to record his satisfaction for invoking Section 68.
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 held that the services rendered by foreign attorneys for obtaining patents and IP registrations abroad fall within the ambit of 'consultancy services' as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS was upheld.