Loading ITAT cases…
152 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that the services provided did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the Indian affiliate, as required by the DTAA. The recipient was unable to use the technology independently after the services were rendered.
The Tribunal held that KIPL did not habitually secure orders for the assessee and was remunerated on an arm's length basis. Therefore, KIPL did not qualify as a DAPE, and the assessee's case fell outside the scope of PE as per the DTAA.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to availing the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The respondent did not object to this request.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year had set aside the additions on which the penalty was levied. Therefore, the penalty issue was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the services provided did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the Indian affiliate, as required by the DTAA. Therefore, the receipts were not taxable as FIS in India.
The Tribunal held that KIPL did not habitually secure orders for the assessee and was remunerated on an arm's length basis. Therefore, KIPL did not qualify as a DAPE, and the assessee's case fell outside the scope of PE as per the DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the services provided did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the Indian affiliate, which is a prerequisite for FTS under the DTAA. Therefore, the receipts were not taxable as FTS.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, stating that the facts were identical to the preceding seven years where rental income was consistently treated as income from house property. The Tribunal followed the rule of consistency as laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee's bonafide disclosure of transactions and payment of taxes led to the deletion of the penalty.
The ITAT found that it was unclear if the assessee had received notice for the final hearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the services provided did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the Indian affiliate, which is a prerequisite for taxing such income as FIS under the DTAA. Therefore, the receipts are not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred by substituting projected figures with actual subsequent results, as valuation is not an exact science and projections are inherently subject to variance. The action of the AO was contrary to established judicial precedents.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A, finding that the investments yielding dividend income were acquired through amalgamation and no expenditure was incurred for earning such income. The CIT(A) also reversed the adjustments made to book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as the limitation period for reassessment had expired under the old provisions before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2012 became effective. Therefore, the reassessment orders were a nullity.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as the limitation period for reassessment had expired under the old provisions before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2012 became effective. Therefore, the reassessment orders were a nullity.
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount voluntarily disallowed by the assessee. The issue of DDT rate was restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication based on future Special Bench rulings. The Revenue's appeal regarding General License Fee and depreciation was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the issue was restored for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the software purchased by the assessee falls under the head of plant & machinery and is eligible for depreciation at 60%. No distinguishing facts were presented by the Revenue to deviate from earlier years' decisions.
The Tribunal held that deductions made by the employer towards future benefits are part of the salary and thus, the gross salary income is taxable. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions on identical issues for the same assessees in preceding assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Following a previous decision for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of offshore supplies.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of year-end accruals and the addition on account of mark-up on support services were to be deleted, as these issues were consistently decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years. The addition for non-deduction of TDS on salary reimbursements was also deleted, following earlier precedents.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue. It remitted one issue regarding interest income expenses back to the AO for fresh consideration and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of certain additions, including those related to unconfirmed creditors and rent paid.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the penalties. Since the additions that formed the basis for the penalty proceedings were already deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty could not survive.
The Tribunal held that deductions made by the employer towards future benefits are part of the salary and thus, the gross salary income is taxable. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions on identical issues for the same assessees in preceding assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, acting as a distributor, sold copyrighted articles and did not transfer the right to use the copyright. Therefore, the income was not royalty but business income, taxable only if a Permanent Establishment existed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Following a previous decision for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of offshore supplies.
The Tribunal held that the centralized services fee received by the assessee is not in the nature of FTS or royalty under Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA. The predominant purpose of the arrangement was advertisement, marketing, and promotion, making the services business income, not taxable in India due to the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE).
The Tribunal noted that the transfer pricing adjustment, which formed the basis of the penalty, was subject to further appeal. Based on the assessee's contention, which was not controverted by the revenue, that carrying out the Tribunal's directions would eliminate the adjustment, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the TDS credit should be treated as income of the assessee, partaking the character of the original RPC fee. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the TDS credit and tax it in the same manner as the RPC fee.
The Tribunal held that the TDS credit should be treated as income of the assessee, partaking the character of the original RPC fee. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the TDS credit and tax it in the same manner as the RPC fee.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the penalty. Since the additions that formed the basis for the penalty were already deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was sent to a wrong address, and therefore, not served on the assessee. The assessee's contention of filing the appeal after obtaining a certified copy was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the distribution revenue earned by the assessee is to be taxed as business income, not royalty. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own cases and the distinction between copyright and broadcast reproduction rights.
The Tribunal held that the distribution revenue earned by the assessee cannot be taxed as royalty but as business income. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal on identical facts.
The Tribunal held that the denial of a claim cannot automatically lead to a penalty, especially when the Assessing Officer has the duty to compute correct depreciation. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year, the penalty was deemed not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the distribution revenue earned by the assessee is to be taxed as business income and not royalty. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own cases and the distinction between copyright and broadcast reproduction rights.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of consultancy charges, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence to establish that the payments were not FTS. The Tribunal noted a similar disallowance was accepted by the assessee in a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, following its own previous decisions for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. Consequently, the addition of income attributable to the alleged PE was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record clear satisfaction regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was being levied. Furthermore, additions under Section 94(7) and disallowances under Section 14A are generally considered debatable, making penalty levy inappropriate.
The Tribunal held that the TDS credit should be treated as income of the assessee, partaking the character of the original RPC fee. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the TDS credit and tax it in the same manner as the RPC fee.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue. It remitted one issue regarding interest income expenses back to the AO for fresh consideration and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of certain additions, including those related to unconfirmed creditors and rent paid.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 144C as there was no variation prejudicial to the assessee's income. Furthermore, the assessment order was found to be barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the DRP had misconceived facts and improperly applied its mind to the record. The DRP's directions regarding attribution of income from offshore supplies and onshore services were found to be unsustainable due to factual inconsistencies and non-consideration of evidence.
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount voluntarily disallowed by the assessee. The issue of DDT rate was restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication based on future Special Bench rulings. The Revenue's appeal regarding General License Fee and depreciation was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the revenue earned from the sale of software is not taxable as royalty under Article 12 of the India-Ireland DTAA. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own cases and a Supreme Court judgment.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the MAP resolution.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal without cogent reasons and the non-appearance of the assessee. Given these circumstances, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeals, the Tribunal dismissed them, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the estimations made by the lower authorities. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee failed to offer a defense against concealment of income.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal without cogent reasons and the non-appearance of the assessee. Given these circumstances, the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.