Loading ITAT cases…
214 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal found contradictions regarding whether the assessee provided explanations and documents to the AO. Therefore, the entire issue of cash deposits was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented collections made by the assessee in his capacity as a Business Correspondent for SBI and were not his own funds. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a certificate from SBI confirming the assessee's role.
The Tribunal addressed several grounds concerning the selection of comparable companies and the imputation of interest on trade receivables. Regarding the exclusion of companies, the Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to exclude Toxsl Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Orchasp Ltd., Infomile Technologies Ltd., Batchmaster Software Pvt. Ltd., Elveego Circuits Pvt. Ltd., Celstream Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and DCIS Dot Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on the basis that persistent loss-making companies are not suitable comparables. However, the Tribunal directed the inclusion of Hurix Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Kireeti Soft Technologies Ltd. Hurix Systems was included as it was functionally similar and derived revenue from software development services. Kireeti Soft Technologies Ltd. was included because, while it marginally failed the export turnover filter in one year, its average export turnover over three years met the criteria, and the DRP had also directed its inclusion subject to passing quantitative filters. On the issue of interest on delayed trade receivables, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's primary argument of no interest being chargeable due to being debt-free, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient data. Respectfully following the decision in Signode India Limited Vs. DCIT, the Tribunal directed the TPO to compute interest on trade receivables by applying LIBOR + 200 basis points after allowing a credit period of 60 days. The adjustment of Rs. 2,88,65,710 was thus modified.
The Tribunal held that the issue of unabsorbed depreciation set-off requires verification of the demerger scheme and the quantum of depreciation transferable. It restored the matter to the AO for verification and determination of the eligible set-off.
The Tribunal held that presumptions under Section 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to documents seized from a third party without corroborative evidence. Additions based solely on such material are unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a cogent explanation for the inordinate delay of 716 days in filing the appeal. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause for condonation.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The matter was restored to the AO to verify individual eligibility and grant exemption accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in rejecting the books of account due to lack of proper documentation and estimating profit. The addition of rental income was also considered correct as separate business receipts.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion, reviewing the same facts and material already considered during the original scrutiny assessment. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the approval dates and the date of dispatch of the notice under section 148, indicating procedural irregularities.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the AO erred in not excluding the already offered business income while making the STCG addition. Regarding the cash found, the Tribunal noted the AO should have conducted further verifications before summarily rejecting the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's age and health as sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found contradictions regarding whether the assessee provided explanations and documents to the AO. Therefore, the entire issue of cash deposits was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, the AO was required to obtain approval from a higher authority as per Section 151. As the approval was obtained from an authority not vested with jurisdiction, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that presumptions under Section 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to documents seized from a third party without corroborative evidence. Additions based solely on such material are unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly their status as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the AO was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly their status as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal held that the arguments of the assessee regarding the selection of the tested party and foreign comparables lack merit. Citing the case of M/s. IZMO Ltd. vs. DCIT, the Tribunal rejected the contention that a foreign AE must be regarded as the tested party, stating that geographical and economic circumstances of foreign comparables may differ and not reflect the correct Arm's Length Price (ALP). Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the TPO's reasons for selecting the assessee (Freyr India) as the tested party. However, the Tribunal found that the TPO's re-characterization of the assessee's services as KPO and the selection of various comparables were incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provides domain-specific regulatory affairs (RA) services, which are not specifically included in the definition of KPO services under Rule 10TA(g). Many companies selected by the TPO were involved in R&D, engineering, IT, advertising, and gaming. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO)/TPO for a fresh benchmarking analysis and selection of appropriate comparables, directing them to provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain its case and file relevant details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 230 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs. 2,500/-. Since the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly their status as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal held that presumptions under Section 132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act are not applicable to documents seized from a third party without corroborative evidence. Additions based solely on such material are unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), following precedent. It also held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B), but directed the AO to verify the assessee's eligibility.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly their status as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposits through loan account statements and bank statements, showing prior withdrawals that matched the loan repayments and subsequent deposits.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly their status as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence due to record seizure. Therefore, a fresh opportunity was granted to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly their status as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal held that payments made through banking channels to the extent of Rs. 8,66,200 were explained and thus deleted this portion of the addition. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,96,000 was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of cancellation transactions and payments made by the assessee's daughter.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals and held that the ex-gratia compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). However, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility of each assessee, particularly if they qualify as a 'workman'.