Loading ITAT cases…
595 orders · Page 12 of 12
The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by a previous Tribunal order. Consequently, the penalty order could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the revenue from software sales is not royalty income, following Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents. Similarly, cloud service subscriptions were deemed not to be royalty, as they represent consideration for online access and data processing, not the use of copyrighted software or infrastructure.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the IT Act. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the payment of EDC to HUDA was in effect a payment to the State Government. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS, and the penalty under Section 271C was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the payment of EDC to HUDA was in effect a payment to the State Government. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS, and the penalty under Section 271C was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction and specify in the notice whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the AO's assessment order and the penalty notice did not meet these requirements, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the outstanding liabilities to Arora Handicrafts and Dev Art & Handicraft could not be added under Section 68 as they represented carry forward amounts, partly repaid. Similarly, the outstanding to First Recourse & Movers and Sunil Kumar were considered repaid in subsequent years, making the addition unjustified.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the VSV scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the VSV benefits for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 9,83,055/- as Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee failed to appear, provide a complete address, or rebut the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The dismissal was conditional, allowing for restoration if the assessee fails to avail the VSV Scheme benefits for bona fide reasons.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn since the assessee had settled the tax liability under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and no longer wished to press the appeal.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the disallowance of Rs. 4,73,420/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) and the disallowance of proportionate interest of Rs. 6 lakhs on advances made to D. R. Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the loan repayments were fully explained by the assessee's business receipts and directed the AO to delete the addition. For the sundry creditors, the tribunal found that the assessment order was passed hastily without adequate opportunity for verification and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence of withdrawing the amount from his bank loan account and that the Assessing Officer had not brought any adverse material to disprove this. Therefore, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that a final settlement order under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been issued to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that Form No. 5 was issued to the assessee under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already deleted the quantum additions. Consequently, the basis for imposing the penalty ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a due opportunity of hearing during the first appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the ledger account and bank statements submitted by the assessee, showing withdrawals and re-deposits, were not properly appreciated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s refusal to grant an adjournment and passing of an ex-parte order violated the principles of natural justice. The order was set aside to allow for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening were perfunctory and did not establish a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. The reopening was also found to be in violation of the first proviso to Section 147, as no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts was alleged.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance. While the assessee's inactivity was acknowledged, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking logical reasons.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, and the revenue had no objection. The Tribunal considered the withdrawal request and proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
The Tribunal noted that due to the moratorium declared by the NCLT, no proceedings in any court or tribunal can continue. Therefore, continuing the present appeal would serve no useful purpose.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it on a hyper-technical procedural ground. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that payments for the use of software through End User License Agreements (EULAs) do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Center of Excellence Pvt Ltd.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the liability crystallized in February 2012, after an MOU was signed, and thus should be assessed for AY 2012-13, not AY 2011-12. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not sufficient to warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's conduct was not found to be contumacious.
The Tribunal found a contradiction between the assessment order, which indicated compliance, and the penalty order, which alleged non-compliance. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's conduct was not contumacious and set aside the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The High Court had ruled that such income was covered by Article 8 of the DTAA and thus exempt from Indian taxation.
The Tribunal held that the consideration for the sale of perpetual license of computer software through an End User License Agreement is not royalty income taxable in India. The decision followed the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India, where they have no PE in India and the income is not taxable in India, is an allowable expenditure. It also held that TUF subsidy is a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt.
The Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court had subsequently reversed the AAR ruling in the assessee's own case, holding that such payments are not royalty. Therefore, the cases were remitted to the AO to give effect to the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court had subsequently reversed the AAR ruling in the assessee's own case, holding that such payments are not royalty. Therefore, the cases were remitted to the AO to give effect to the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court had subsequently reversed the AAR ruling in the assessee's own case, holding that such payments are not royalty. Therefore, the cases were remitted to the AO to give effect to the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court had subsequently reversed the AAR ruling in the assessee's own case, holding that such payments are not royalty. Therefore, the cases were remitted to the AO to give effect to the High Court's decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The High Court had ruled that such income was covered by Article 8 of the DTAA and thus exempt from Indian taxation.