Loading ITAT cases…
529 orders · Page 11 of 11
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed a laconic order without properly dealing with the assessee's submissions and case laws. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a detailed order considering all facts and arguments.
The tribunal held that the sale of software products does not constitute royalty income, following established judicial precedents. Similarly, subscription revenue from cloud services was also not considered royalty income.
The tribunal held that the sale of software products does not constitute royalty income, following established judicial precedents. Similarly, subscription revenue from cloud services was also not considered royalty income.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263 was not legally sustainable. The AO had made requisite inquiries, and the assessee had provided necessary replies, leading the AO to be satisfied with the deductions. The mere absence of revenue generation did not automatically render the expenditure unallowable.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that when an assessee has huge own interest-free funds, no disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2) can be made. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in favour of the assessee for earlier assessment years.
The tribunal held that the sale of software products does not constitute royalty income, following established judicial precedents. Similarly, subscription revenue from cloud services was also not considered royalty income.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for denovo adjudication on merits. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, observing that the underlying addition on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted by the ITAT. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere as the Revenue did not demonstrate any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had issued the relevant form. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty orders were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the actual exempt dividend income.
The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution towards PF/ESI were not justified, as the amounts were deposited before the filing of the return of income. The amendment brought by Finance Act 2021 was held not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.
The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's revised computation and allowed the expenditure, taking a pragmatic view. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, reaffirming their pragmatic approach in determining taxable income.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty orders were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty orders were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty orders were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal, in a prior appeal, held that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) as registration under Section 12AA was granted retrospectively. Consequently, the addition was deleted, rendering the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that a limited company incurs certain expenses like salary and other operational costs for its legal existence and compliance, even if there is no revenue or active business during a particular year. The absence of business activity or revenue cannot be the sole basis for disallowing such routine expenses.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty orders were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the challenge to the notice under Section 148 of the Act was decided in favour of the assessee, all subsequent orders became non-est. Therefore, the impugned order under appeal was also considered non-est.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of the companies were settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Act, the Revenue's appeal against the assessee, where only a protective addition was made, had become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of the companies were settled under the Vivad-se-Viswas Act, the Revenue's appeal against the assessee, where only a protective addition was made, had become infructuous.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are contractual payments for services and not for the use of premises, thus falling under Section 194C. Consequently, the assessee was not in default for deducting TDS at the rate applicable under Section 194C.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as agreed by both parties.