Loading ITAT cases…
112 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the payment made for acquiring the 'Right to Render BPO Services' was eligible for depreciation. It also directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables in the transfer pricing adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the payment made for acquiring the 'Right to Render BPO Services' was eligible for depreciation. It also directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables in the transfer pricing adjustment.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits. The tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the payment made for acquiring the 'Right to Render BPO Services' was eligible for depreciation. It also directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables in the transfer pricing adjustment.
The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the addition for silver articles, stating no addition was called for. For KVPs, credit was granted for withdrawals from a savings account, restricting the addition. The appeal concerning property investment was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt but implied to be upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that payments for software licenses do not constitute 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee was not liable to withhold tax, and the demand under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment effective from June 1, 2015, the Co-operative Bank was not obligated to deduct TDS on interest paid to its members and other co-operative societies under the then existing provisions of Section 194A(3)(v).
The Tribunal held that initiating penalty proceedings under one limb of Section 271(1)(c) and levying it under another limb is legally unsustainable. The AO must specify the correct limb at both initiation and levy stages.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest earned on investments made with cooperative banks, as it was a mandatory requirement of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and considered part of its business activity. However, interest from mutual funds and other services were not eligible for this deduction.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea regarding the violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that an aggregation approach applied by the TPO was incorrect and directed the AO to verify segmental margins and apply internal TNMM. It also directed the AO to compute depreciation on capital goods as per DRP's directions and consider the +/- 5% variation.
The Tribunal held that an aggregation approach applied by the TPO was incorrect and directed the AO to verify segmental margins and apply internal TNMM. It also directed the AO to compute depreciation on capital goods as per DRP's directions and consider the +/- 5% variation.