Loading ITAT cases…
1,092 orders · Page 9 of 22
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the classification of sales tax and central excise subsidies as revenue receipts. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals on certain issues, while restoring others to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.
The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the classification of sales tax and central excise subsidies as revenue receipts. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals on certain issues, while restoring others to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the non-resident company were inextricably connected with the extraction of mineral oil and thus fall under Section 44BB, not Section 115A. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.
The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure substantial justice, with a direction for the assessees to cooperate fully.
The Tribunal held that since the Indian subsidiary (RIPL) was already remunerated at arm's length, no further attribution of profit to the PE was warranted. Even when deducting the remuneration paid to RIPL from the attributed profits, no taxable income remained.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivaad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the classification of sales tax and central excise subsidies as revenue receipts. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals on certain issues, while restoring others to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the company directors were infructuous as insolvency proceedings had commenced. The appeals were dismissed with liberty for the IRP to file fresh appeals if deemed prudent.
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 held that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the exclusion of interest income that was not attributable to earning exempt income. The interest on investments in overseas companies that did not yield exempt income was rightly excluded.
The Tribunal held that since the Indian subsidiary (RIPL) was already remunerated at arm's length, no further attribution of profit to the PE was warranted. Even when deducting the remuneration paid to RIPL from the attributed profits, no taxable income remained.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as per the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that since the Indian subsidiary (RIPL) was already remunerated at arm's length, no further attribution of profit to the PE was warranted. Even when deducting the remuneration paid to RIPL from the attributed profits, no taxable income remained.
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 Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
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.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the company directors were infructuous as insolvency proceedings had commenced. The appeals were dismissed with liberty for the IRP to file fresh appeals if deemed prudent.
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 accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Senior DR had no objection to this request.
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 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 Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Noida Assessing Officer was not legally valid, rendering the assessment order void ab initio.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as infructuous.
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 Senior DR had no objection to this request.
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 appeals. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad se Vishwash Scheme, the assessee can seek reinstitution of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the Indian subsidiary (RIPL) was already remunerated at arm's length, no further attribution of profit to the PE was warranted. Even when deducting the remuneration paid to RIPL from the attributed profits, no taxable income remained.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. This was based on the assessee opting to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals concerning the classification of sales tax and central excise subsidies as revenue receipts. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeals on certain issues, while restoring others to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided to consign the appeals to records and treat them as dismissed, subject to the condition that the assessee can seek reinstitution if the dispute is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2013-14, the assessee was eligible to claim set-off of loss against income determined under Section 115BBE, as the amendment disallowing set-off was prospective. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Tribunal accepted this request.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal accepted this request.
The Tribunal held that no income had accrued to the assessee in the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The CIT(A) had rightly considered the material on record and the submissions of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the collaboration agreement dated April 28, 2006, and the assignment cum nomination agreement dated July 21, 2006, were inextricably linked and conditional. The right to receive the consideration of Rs. 86 crores was contingent upon the fulfillment of various conditions, including the successful and timely completion of the project by Emaar MGF and satisfaction of PCL. The amount received was also partly a refundable/adjustable security deposit. Therefore, the income did not accrue on the date of signing the agreements but only upon the satisfaction of these conditions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had offered the income for taxation in subsequent years and that the AO had previously accepted similar explanations in AY 2009-2010, highlighting a lack of consistency. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.