Loading ITAT cases…
84 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the UK entity acted as an independent contractor and not a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India. Therefore, no income could be deemed to have accrued to the UK entity in India.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to bring on record any tangible material to corroborate the allegations of sham transactions or cash exchange. Therefore, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 45(3) of the Act, which deals with capital contribution to an AOP, is applicable. Section 50C is not applicable to the transfer of development rights in this context. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were reversed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions. The AO failed to bring on record any tangible material to corroborate the allegations of sham transactions or cash exchange. Therefore, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the second notice for reopening was invalid because it was issued beyond four years without fulfilling the conditions of Section 147 and without proper application of mind by the CIT. The reassessment proceedings were vitiated and quashed.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to produce assessment records to substantiate its claim that the assessment was extended due to a reference to the FT & TR Division, CBDT. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing issue was settled through MAP and thus the revenue's appeal was infructuous. Regarding the CENVAT credit, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-computation based on previous tribunal directions.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing issue was settled through MAP and thus the revenue's appeal was infructuous. Regarding the CENVAT credit, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-computation based on previous tribunal directions.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to exclude 'Om Logistics Ltd.' from the list of comparable companies for benchmarking international transactions. It also allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on goodwill, following earlier decisions.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. The judgment primarily focuses on the procedural aspect of order pronouncement time limits, referencing the COVID-19 lockdown period and force majeure principles, rather than adjudicating the substantive grounds of appeal regarding director's remuneration and interest capitalization.
The Tribunal held that pre-operative expenses, if revenue in nature and incurred for business purposes, should be allowed in the year incurred, even if written off over a period in the books. The Tribunal relied on previous ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the tax effect was below the CBDT's revised monetary limit for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable. This decision was based on a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal found that the issue of notice service was a factual matter requiring verification and that the technical grounds went to the root of jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the ALP of the corporate guarantee fee should be restricted to 0.5%, leading to a partial allowance of the assessee's ground. It also allowed the deduction for expenses related to additional services and the pension payment to former directors, dismissing the revenue's appeal on these points.
The Tribunal held that the receipts were in the nature of business receipts and should be taxed under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at 10% of the gross receipts. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues for the previous assessment year were decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the purchases, considering that the sales from these purchases were not disputed. The profit percentage was to be taxed, not the entire purchase value.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. It agreed with the DRP's decision to delete the adjustment, finding that the DRP had valid reasons for upholding the RPM method over the TNMM.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid. This was based on the Bombay High Court's ruling that Section 148 notice cannot be issued before the period for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) has expired.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on grounds related to provisions for costs on completed contracts and excess progress billings on completed contracts, following its own precedents. However, one issue was not pressed and another was consequential.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed for additions made under normal provisions when the tax is paid under Section 115JB, especially for assessment years prior to the amendment of Explanation 4 to Section 271(1).
The Tribunal held that goodwill arising from a merger, even if the acquired division was loss-making, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation. The claim for depreciation on goodwill was allowed.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the CIT(A)'s order and give due effect to the ITAT's prior decision which had deleted the additions on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the period of lockdown due to Covid-19 should be excluded when calculating the 90-day period for pronouncement of orders.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of account and that the disallowance was made on ad hoc basis without proper justification. The Tribunal noted that similar facts in earlier years were accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was similar to a co-ordinate bench decision where additions were deleted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made investments through preferential allotment with payments via cheque and shares appeared in the demat account. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, as a gullible investor, held the shares for a period showing growth before selling them in the open market.
The Tribunal held that Axis Integrated Systems Ltd. is functionally dissimilar to the assessee and cannot be treated as a comparable. Consequently, the weighted average margin of the remaining comparables would bring the assessee's margin within the acceptable range, requiring no further adjustment.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground of appeal challenging the validity of the assessment order due to the absence of a draft assessment order, as mandated by Section 144C(1). It held that the AO's failure to pass a draft assessment order vitiates the final assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the additions did not fall under the exceptions for undisclosed foreign assets or bank accounts. The Tribunal noted that part of the addition was admitted by the AO as a transfer from the assessee's own NRE account.
The Tribunal held that a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) is only permissible if the AO proposes to make a variation in the income or loss returned that is prejudicial to the assessee. Since the AO did not vary the returned income, the draft assessment order and consequently the final assessment order were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO's invocation of Section 14A was valid as there were no suo-moto disallowances by the assessee. It directed the AO to consider net interest expenditure for disallowances and restricted the total disallowances under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the AO had conclusively proved their case with sufficient evidence. It held that only the profit element embedded in suspicious purchases should be taxed, not the total purchase amount.
The Tribunal held that losses on forward contracts are allowable as business expenditure. For Section 14A disallowance, it was held that it cannot exceed the exempt income earned.