Loading ITAT cases…
150 orders · Page 3 of 3
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.
The Tribunal held that a misconceived or wrong claim for deduction does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Since there was no finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the Revenue had no objection, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to this, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to this, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to this, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to this, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to this, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to this, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.
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 CIT(A) did not provide sufficient time to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee and passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to submit the requisite details to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) needs to satisfy himself about the objects and genuineness of the trust's activities.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to this, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to this, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to this, and the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that at the time of filing the return, there was no prescribed procedure to upload Form No.10 online. Therefore, the assessee cannot be expected to perform an impossible act.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to the facts, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to this, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.
The Tribunal held that quasi-judicial authorities should provide reasonable opportunities for hearing and dispose of matters on merits. The Revenue conceded to this, and the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) orders.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had occupied and used the premises for its business purposes, as evidenced by various documents. The Revenue failed to provide contrary reliable evidence. The rent paid was also found to be at ALP when compared to a similar uncontrolled transaction.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if needed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if needed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore them if needed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the interest income was disclosed in the return of income under 'income from other sources'. Merely making an incorrect claim or a disallowance does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the excess provision for bad debts was made out of earlier years' income which was already offered to tax. Therefore, taxing it again in the current year would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the average value of investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the assessee's appeal and dismissed it. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to restore it if needed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the assessee's appeal and dismissed it. The Revenue's appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to restore it if needed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that even if the payment was considered salary, it was not taxable in India as services were rendered outside India. Therefore, the assessment order could not be deemed erroneous for not disallowing the expense.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had filed applications under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The ITAT 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 assessee requested to withdraw both appeals due to the application filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the provision for bad debt should be treated as non-operating expenditure for transfer pricing purposes, and the ad-hoc filter applied by the TPO for excluding companies with bad debts was rejected. The Revenue's appeal regarding the method for computing Arm's Length Margin was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw both appeals. This was in view of the assessee having filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the provision for bad debt should be treated as non-operating expenditure for transfer pricing purposes, and the ad-hoc filter applied by the TPO for excluding companies with bad debts was rejected. The Revenue's appeal regarding the method for computing Arm's Length Margin was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below were justified in using entity-level data for ALP determination. However, it directed a re-decision on the inclusion of a comparable company and allowed working capital adjustment. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow deduction for education cess.
The Tribunal noted that this issue was decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years. The CIT(A) had relied on the Tribunal's earlier orders, which were found to be justified.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid as the issues were apparent from the original return and no failure to disclose material facts occurred. Furthermore, the underlying order treating the assessee in default for TDS had already been quashed.
The Tribunal held that since taxes were deducted at source on the provident fund amount, no prejudice was caused to the revenue. They also noted the absence of evidence demonstrating deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the assessee's bona fide belief, thus setting aside the penalty.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal proceedings under specific circumstances related to the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal held that mere rejection of an explanation does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c), especially when the assessee offered an explanation and did not conceal particulars or furnish inaccurate details in the return. The penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal proceedings under specific circumstances related to the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in denying registration by considering assessment issues. The grant of registration and assessment are separate procedures, and the CIT should only consider the charitable nature and genuineness of activities.