Loading ITAT cases…
463 orders · Page 10 of 10
The Tribunal held that interest on late service tax payment is compensatory and allowable as a deduction. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to foreign exchange losses and gains.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E is a charging section for default in furnishing TDS statements and that the amendment to Section 200A effective from 01.06.2015 allows for the computation of this fee during processing. Therefore, the levy of late filing fee was upheld.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI beyond the stipulated period prescribed in the respective Acts are not allowable deductions. This decision followed the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI beyond the stipulated period prescribed in the respective Acts are not allowable deductions. This decision followed the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal restored the issue of employee PF/ESIC contributions to the Assessing Officer for verification of the 'month' as per the PF scheme. The disallowance of ESOP expenses was upheld in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in discarding the DCF method of valuation adopted by the assessee. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that valuation is not an exact science and the commercial prudence of outside investors should not be questioned when a recognized valuation method is used.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in discarding the DCF method of valuation adopted by the assessee. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision, stating that valuation is not an exact science and the commercial prudence of outside investors should not be questioned when a recognized valuation method is used.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided more opportunities for the assessee to be heard and should not have decided the appeal ex-parte. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and no current investments. For disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments yielding exempt income should be considered.
The Tribunal noted that the disallowance was based on mistaken data regarding deposit dates. The assessee claimed a portion was deposited before the due date. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for verification of actual payment dates.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and no current investments. For disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments yielding exempt income should be considered.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and no current investments. For disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments yielding exempt income should be considered.
The tribunal held that the DRP's arbitrary selection of a 3% royalty rate without proper comparables was incorrect. It also noted that the DRP agreed the TPO erred in applying the CUP method for FTS and determining ALP at Nil.