Loading ITAT cases…
52 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. It also upheld the addition of interest on income-tax refund as it is chargeable to tax.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was done after perusing the withdrawal letter and noting no objection from the Revenue's representative.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, allowed the request. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that brand building expenses, which facilitated sales, should be included in the operating cost base for computing the profit level indicator (PLI). The contention for excluding these expenses was rejected.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, after the assessee had fulfilled the necessary compliances.
The assessee requested permission to withdraw the appeal, and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the tribunal permitted the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals, and the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted in accordance with the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the receipt of services from its AE and that the services were in terms of the agreement. However, the Tribunal found it proper to remand the issue to the TPO for fresh adjudication to determine the arm's length price.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not raise any objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals, and the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals, and the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that brand building expenses, which facilitated sales, should be included in the operating cost base for computing the profit level indicator (PLI). The contention for excluding these expenses was rejected.
The Tribunal held that brand building expenses, which facilitated sales, should be included in the operating cost base for computing the profit level indicator (PLI). The contention for excluding these expenses was rejected.
The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals, and the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the Revenue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue did not object. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that all assessees wished to withdraw their appeals, and the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, finding that the AO's assessment was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest due to inadequate inquiry on the issues raised. The assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange loss on assets acquired out of ECB loans should be allowed as a deduction for determining the actual cost of the asset. It also held that TP adjustments should be restricted to international transactions.
The Tribunal held that income from mutual funds should be treated as capital gains and interest from FDRs as income from other sources, not business income. The penalty appeal was dismissed due to a defective notice.
The Tribunal held that income from mutual funds should be treated as capital gains and interest from FDRs as income from other sources, not business income. The penalty appeal was dismissed due to a defective notice.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify the exact charge for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Relying on the Bombay High Court judgment, the Tribunal found the notice invalid.
The Tribunal held that income from mutual funds should be treated as capital gains and interest from FDRs as income from other sources, not business income. The penalty appeal was dismissed due to a defective notice.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify the exact charge for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Relying on the Bombay High Court judgment, the Tribunal found the notice invalid.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify the exact charge for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Relying on the Bombay High Court judgment, the Tribunal found the notice invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was ad-hoc and lacked cogent reasoning. The CIT(Appeals) was correct in deleting the disallowance as the services rendered by the liaison representatives were substantiated by evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in re-characterizing the transactions of debentures/CCDs as equity shares, following a previous year's precedent. The matter of Arm's Length Price determination for interest was remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh computation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view on re-characterizing debentures/CCDs as equity, remitting the ALP determination back to the AO/TPO. It also directed the deletion of an addition under Section 43CA as the difference between sale consideration and stamp value was within the safe harbor limit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view on re-characterizing debentures/CCDs as equity, remitting the ALP determination back to the AO/TPO. It also directed the deletion of an addition under Section 43CA as the difference between sale consideration and stamp value was within the safe harbor limit.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality was given up by the assessee. However, the issue of setting off society maintenance expenses against interest income required factual verification. The CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate this aspect.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in re-characterizing the transactions of debentures/CCDs as equity shares, following a previous year's precedent. The matter of Arm's Length Price determination for interest was remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, which were more than the advances given for non-business purposes, no disallowance of interest expenditure was warranted. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's submission regarding interest-free funds was not dealt with by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) could not arrive at satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the assessee's activities due to lack of evidence. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that certain comparables required further verification and directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to re-examine them. Specifically, for Future Capital Holdings Limited, the issue of Related Party Transactions was remanded for verification. For Future Capital Investment Advisors Limited, the TPO was directed to follow the DRP's specific directions on margin determination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to adopt the Valuation Officer's report for capital gains computation. The assessee's arguments regarding an earlier agreement to sale and the land being agricultural were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's right to occupy the property constituted a capital asset, and the Rs. 60 lakhs received was valid consideration for its transfer. Therefore, the exemption under Section 54F was rightly claimed.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-compute the transfer pricing adjustment considering the assessee's voluntary adjustment and to re-evaluate the capacity utilization adjustment. The Tribunal also ruled that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to international transactions.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-compute the transfer pricing adjustment considering the assessee's voluntary adjustment and to re-evaluate the capacity utilization adjustment. The Tribunal also ruled that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to international transactions.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order did not adjudicate the assessee's rights and liabilities. Therefore, the assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case with proper evidence.
The Tribunal held that when own funds are more than investments, a presumption exists that investments were made from own funds, not borrowed funds. Therefore, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not warranted for the portion of investment made from own funds.
The Tribunal held that the registered sale deed, duly signed by all parties and registered, should be preferred over the agreement which was partly signed and not registered. The addition was therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 54F requires construction to be undertaken and the net consideration to be invested within the stipulated period, not necessarily completion of construction. The emphasis is on the act of constructing and investing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim set off of brought forward losses. The AO was directed to verify the facts and allow proper set off after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of depreciation on cars for personal use was justified but reduced the disallowance percentage. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for the embezzlement loss as it was considered irrecoverable.