Loading ITAT cases…
150 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute the actual consideration received with the fair market value unless specific provisions like Section 50C are applicable. The 'full value of consideration' refers to the actual amount received or accrued, not necessarily the market value.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute the actual consideration received by the assessee with the fair market value or ready reckoner rates, as there is no specific provision in the Income Tax Act that allows for such substitution in this context. The 'full value of consideration' refers to the actual amount received or accrued.
The ITAT held that the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was invalid. The tribunal emphasized that judicial pronouncements of higher courts override CBDT circulars, and the Assessing Officer was bound by the law declared by the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The Tribunal held that MPS Limited, one of the comparables chosen by the TPO, was not comparable as it was engaged in both ITES and software products business, and lacked segmental information for ITES. Therefore, MPS Limited was directed to be excluded.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Revenue was granted liberty to file an application for restoration of the appeal if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of disallowance under Section 35(2AB) by the CIT(A) was justified based on previous ITAT rulings. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was remanded for re-verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of disallowance under Section 35(2AB) by the CIT(A) was justified based on previous ITAT rulings. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was remanded for re-verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the matter was covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the payment for the period October 2009 to September 2010 qualifies for deduction as it falls within the scope of the agreement and the crystallization of liability. However, the payment for the period October 2008 to September 2009 was not allowed as it was anterior to the agreement.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the excess sugarcane price paid is an appropriation of profit requires further examination by the Assessing Officer, considering business expediency. Similarly, the concessional sale of sugar needs to be examined in light of specific questions raised by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of disallowance under Section 35(2AB) by the CIT(A) was justified based on previous ITAT rulings. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was remanded for re-verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfied all three conditions stipulated in Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) for non-imposition of penalty. The assessee computed the ALP in good faith and with due diligence, and the differences with the TPO were a genuine difference of opinion resolved in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for computing disallowance under Rule 8D, only the average value of investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.
The Tribunal dismissed the legal ground regarding the quashing of the entire assessment order, stating that only a part of the DRP's directions were flawed. The Tribunal also directed the exclusion of one comparable company and remanded the issue of another comparable company back to the AO/TPO for verification.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessees to withdraw their appeals. For one appeal, a conditional withdrawal was granted, allowing for restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas application was disapproved.
The Tribunal held that one comparable company, Infobeans Systems Pvt. Ltd., should be included despite a merger as its financial results were not impacted. However, Cybercom Datametics Information Solutions Ltd. was excluded due to functional dissimilarity, as it provided technical and consultancy services in addition to software services.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable on account of low tax effect, as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs and no exceptions were demonstrated. The appeal was dismissed without expressing an opinion on the merits.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit in the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessees to withdraw their appeals. For one appeal, a conditional withdrawal was granted, allowing for restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas application was disapproved.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues regarding MSF had been decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years, holding that MSF was not taxable as it did not make available technical knowledge. For leadership training fees, the Tribunal followed a previous decision that such services did not fall under the 'make available' clause of the DTAA.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessees to withdraw their appeals. For one appeal, a conditional withdrawal was granted, allowing for restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas application was disapproved.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessees to withdraw their appeals. For one appeal, a conditional withdrawal was granted, allowing for restoration if the Vivad se Vishwas application was disapproved.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that while the CIT's reasoning for denying registration based solely on revenue generation and mark-up was not entirely correct, the Memorandum of Association did not clearly create an interest in property for the public, which is essential for charitable purposes. However, the Tribunal also noted that the CIT had not considered the matter in the proper perspective.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the payments for software licenses were not royalty income under the DTAA, following a Supreme Court precedent. It also noted that business profits were not taxable as the assessee had no PE in India.