Loading ITAT cases…
273 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses do not constitute an international transaction as defined under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Following its own previous decisions and High Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of AMP expenses.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses do not constitute an international transaction as defined under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Following its own previous decisions and High Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of AMP expenses.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses do not constitute an international transaction as defined under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Following its own previous decisions and High Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of AMP expenses.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses do not constitute an international transaction as defined under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Following its own previous decisions and High Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of AMP expenses.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses do not constitute an international transaction as defined under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Following its own previous decisions and High Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of AMP expenses.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the AO CPC under Section 143(1)(a) were beyond its scope as they involved debatable issues. Such adjustments require a scrutiny assessment, not a summary intimation.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the AO CPC under Section 143(1)(a) were beyond its scope as they involved debatable issues. Such adjustments require a scrutiny assessment, not a summary intimation.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the AO CPC under Section 143(1)(a) were beyond its scope as they involved debatable issues. Such adjustments require a scrutiny assessment, not an intimation under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the AO CPC under Section 143(1)(a) were beyond its scope as they involved debatable issues. Such adjustments require a scrutiny assessment, not a summary intimation.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the AO CPC under Section 143(1)(a) were beyond its scope as they involved debatable issues. Such adjustments require a scrutiny assessment, not a summary intimation.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the AO CPC under Section 143(1)(a) were beyond its scope as they involved debatable issues. Such adjustments require a scrutiny assessment, not a summary intimation.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the AO CPC under Section 143(1)(a) were beyond its scope as they involved debatable issues. Such adjustments require a scrutiny assessment, not a summary intimation.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the AO CPC under Section 143(1)(a) were beyond its scope as they involved debatable issues. Such adjustments require a scrutiny assessment, not a summary intimation.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the AO CPC under Section 143(1)(a) were beyond its scope as they involved debatable issues. Such adjustments require a scrutiny assessment, not a summary intimation.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the AO CPC under Section 143(1)(a) were beyond its scope as they involved debatable issues. Such adjustments require a scrutiny assessment, not an intimation under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the conditions under Section 72A(2) were satisfied. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding additions made under Section 68, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the additions were ad hoc and not supported by evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the conditions under Section 72A(2) were satisfied. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding additions made under Section 68, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the additions were ad hoc and not supported by evidence.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to defend its case on merits, ensuring a fair hearing.
The Tribunal held that an HUF is a collective body of family members, and gifts from such an entity to minor children should be considered as coming from a relative. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of profit at 5.56% was higher than the assessee's declared GP of 3.15% for the impugned year. Considering expenses for unrecorded sales, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate income at 1.50% on the additional sales.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to defend its case on merits, ensuring a fair hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot go beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without prior approval from the PCIT/CCIT. Since the additions were made on issues not covered by the limited scrutiny, they were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all necessary details regarding the sale of shares, including identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the purchasers. Following jurisdictional High Court and coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.