Loading ITAT cases…
609 orders · Page 3 of 13
The Tribunal held that running a pharmacy is an activity incidental or ancillary to the dominant object of running a hospital, following established judicial precedents. Therefore, the surplus from the pharmacy should not be taxed separately.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that running a pharmacy is an activity incidental or ancillary to the dominant object of running a hospital, following established judicial precedents. Therefore, the surplus from the pharmacy should not be taxed separately.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency resolution, no suit can proceed against it. The erstwhile directors who signed the appeals are also functus officio.
The Tribunal held that profit should be estimated on bogus purchases at 12.5% and confirmed additions to that extent. The addition for unexplained expenditure was deleted as no evidence of incurring such expenditure by the assessee was found.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and settled the dispute. Consequently, the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was exempted from the higher rate of surcharge as the transaction was made before July 5, 2019, as per CBDT Circular No. 8/2020. Additionally, the lower deduction certificates indicated that the income of the deductees was below the threshold for surcharge applicability.
The Tribunal held that profit should be estimated on bogus purchases at 12.5% and confirmed additions to that extent. The addition for unexplained expenditure was deleted as no evidence of incurring such expenditure by the assessee was found.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that the resolution professional failed to amend Form No. 36A to prosecute the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable in their current format.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation regarding his employer's demise and the subsequent discovery of the transactions. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that the advances were in the nature of business transactions between two companies and not deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal followed its own prior decision on identical facts for a different assessment year.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and settled the dispute. Consequently, the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal.
The assessee has settled the tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wishes to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of purchases, classifying the assessee's case under the second category where bogus purchases consumed in manufacturing lead to 100% disallowance. The assessee failed to explain the consumption of goods through production or stock registers.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that the resolution professional failed to amend Form No. 36A to prosecute the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable in their current format.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency resolution, no suit can proceed against it. The erstwhile directors who signed the appeals are also functus officio.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency resolution, no suit can proceed against it. The erstwhile directors who signed the appeals are also functus officio.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal restored the issues of estimated business income and cash credits to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For AY 2015-16, the addition for brokerage/commission was held to be subsumed in the gross profit, and the ground was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the resolution professional failed to amend Form No. 36A to prosecute the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable in their current format.
The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.