Loading ITAT cases…
478 orders · Page 1 of 10
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication. This was based on similar issues in a prior assessment year where the Tribunal found infirmities in the approach of both parties regarding comparables and the method of adjustment.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's application under the Vivadh se Viswas Act. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if the settlement application is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that income from cloud hosting services is not royalty under the Act or the India-US tax treaty, as customers do not control or possess the equipment. It also held that interest under section 234B is not leviable on the payee when the payer fails to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal held that the existence of a dependent agency PE is tax-neutral unless the agent's remuneration is not at arm's length. Since the AO did not establish that the agent's remuneration was inadequate, the issue of PE existence became academic. Consequently, the departmental appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivadh se Vishwas Act. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Viswas Act and the department's acceptance of the same.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek revival of the appeal if the Vivadh se Vishwas application was not accepted.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as the dispute was being settled under the Vivadh se Vishwas Act. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the existence of a dependent agency PE is tax-neutral unless the agent's remuneration is not at arm's length. Since the AO did not establish that the agent's remuneration was inadequate, the issue of PE existence became academic. Consequently, the departmental appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek restoration if the Vivad se Viswas application is not accepted. This decision was made in light of the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Viswas Act.
The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was imposed has been deleted by the High Court, the penalty cannot be sustained and must be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee invested in shares without analyzing fundamentals, based on a friend's information. While the assessee provided documentation for share allotment and payment by cheque, the Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of calculated risks by investors.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the service tax adjustments and interest on delayed payment of service tax should be allowed if actually paid in the impugned year. The expenditure for the aborted IPO was also allowed as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's segmental P&L accounts by the TPO on grounds of being unaudited was unsustainable. It directed the Assessing Officer to compare the export segment margin with comparables after applying any allocation key.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that compensation received for displacement and hardship due to redevelopment is a capital receipt, not liable to tax. Therefore, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that for Section 41(1) to apply, the assessee must have received a benefit in cash or kind in the current year, which was not established. It also noted the assessee offered the liability as income in AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the existence of a dependent agency PE is tax-neutral unless the agent's remuneration is not at arm's length. Since the AO did not establish that the agent's remuneration was inadequate, the issue of PE existence became academic. Consequently, the departmental appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and the cross-objection as withdrawn, based on the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act and the agreement of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that income from cloud hosting services is not royalty as per the Act and the tax treaty, following its own prior decisions. Consequently, the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C was also deemed not leviable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's activities were not primarily profit-oriented and that the revenue from non-core activities was negligible. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case regarding the cancellation of registration.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, stating it was a non-speaking order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee before proceeding. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and renders the assessment invalid.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the Vivad se Vishwas applications were not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the transfer pricing issue regarding corporate guarantees to the AO/TPO for fresh benchmarking, considering High Court pronouncements. The Section 14A disallowance issues were partly allowed for the revenue and dismissed for the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases, considering it fair and reasonable. The Assessing Officer's partial disallowance indicated belief in the goods being purchased, albeit not from the declared source.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to properly represent their case with supporting evidence.
The Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the addition to 10% of the alleged non-genuine purchases, considering the evidence provided by the assessee like purchase bills, ledger extract, stock register, and transport bills. The Tribunal agreed with this partial disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147. However, it found the 25% disallowance to be excessive and reduced it to 8% of the non-genuine purchases, considering industry profit margins and VAT paid.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly rejected additional evidences filed by the assessee on a technical ground. Since the assessment was ex-parte, the assessee should have been given an opportunity to present her case with evidence.
Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal, allowing the assessee to restore it if the Vivad-Se-Vishwas scheme application is not accepted or if the assessee does not opt for it.
The Tribunal held that an assessee can make a revised claim during assessment proceedings or before appellate authorities, even if not through a revised return. Since the income was exempt under Section 10(2A), it could not be taxed even if mistakenly offered.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn and the revenue's appeal as infructuous, in light of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the Act is deemed void.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 3% of the non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal agreed that while the source of purchases might be doubtful, the assessee had provided some supporting evidence, and the disallowance should reflect the profit element.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the scheme declaration does not reach a conclusion.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee could not conclusively prove the source of purchases, the goods were indeed acquired. Considering the assessee's declared gross profit rates and industry norms, the disallowance was restricted to 4% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn and the revenue's appeal as infructuous, in light of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Liberty was granted to seek restoration if the declaration under the Act is deemed void.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases. This was because while the assessee failed to conclusively prove the source of purchases, corresponding sales were effected, indicating a doubt only regarding the purchase source.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the issues for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) to substantiate his claims with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee could not conclusively prove the source of purchases, the goods were indeed acquired. Considering the assessee's declared gross profit rates and industry norms, the disallowance was restricted to 4% of the non-genuine purchases.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This dismissal is subject to the condition that the assessee can seek restoration of the appeal if the matter is not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to explain the source of the cash deposit with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order did not indicate that a notice of hearing was issued and served on the assessee. It concluded there was a violation of natural justice by not providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration and received acceptance from the Revenue under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's intention to settle disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Act, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to restore the appeals if the Vivad se Vishwas applications were not accepted.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases, considering that the assessee had produced some supporting evidence and the AO himself did not disallow the entire purchase.