Loading ITAT cases…
58 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by Nalco USA and Nalco Pacific facilitated the assessee's business and were not merely for protecting the individual interests of those companies. Therefore, they were correctly classified as intra-group services, not stewardship activities.
The Tribunal held that the services received by the assessee were in the nature of intra-group services and not stewardship activity, following its decision for the preceding assessment year. The appeal was dismissed as the Revenue only challenged the nature of services, not the ALP determination.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that since the material was consumed, the addition should be restricted to the profit element. Following a jurisdictional High Court ruling, the addition was sustained at 10% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were breached as the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the material was consumed, the addition should be restricted to the profit element. Following a jurisdictional High Court ruling, the addition was sustained at 10% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to make a fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the rights and liabilities of the parties were not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits before the CIT(A) with relevant documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the documents supporting the trademark license fee payment were not before the TPO and DRP. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the TPO for fresh verification of the evidence filed before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered withdrawals and other explained sources. Since the assessee's explanation of deposit sources was not examined by the lower authorities, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had recorded satisfaction for invoking Section 14A. However, following its own prior orders, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to determine the deductible expenditure and the profit distribution component of the excess price paid.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had recorded satisfaction for invoking Section 14A. However, following its own prior orders, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 153C was not applicable as the AO of the searched party did not hand over the documents. It also held that Section 50C is applicable to the transfer of land or building, not development rights, and thus the AO erred in its application.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had capital reserves exceeding its investments, the presumption is that investments were made out of own funds, making disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) unwarranted. However, disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the extent of Rs. 7,17,572/- was sustained.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee wished to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for resolution under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) was unjustified in rejecting the registration solely based on the non-payment of alleged taxes for past years. The Tribunal found that the donations were utilized for the trust's charitable objects and directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant registration.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. No objection was raised by the Revenue's representative.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees wished to withdraw their appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal, having no objection from the Revenue, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the difference between the market price and the concessional price cannot be straightway construed as appropriation of profit. The matter was restored to the AO to ascertain the cost price and make additions only to the extent the concessional sale price is below the cost price.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. No objection was raised by the Revenue's representative.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. No objection was raised by the Revenue's representative.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. No objection was raised by the Revenue's representative.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. No objection was raised by the Revenue's representative.
The Tribunal perused the assessee's withdrawal letter and, with no objection from the Revenue, allowed the request. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that education cess is an additional levy and is included within the tax rate specified in the DTAA. Therefore, it cannot be levied separately. The appeal was allowed on this ground.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element of unaccounted sales, as this approach was consistent with prior rulings in similar cases.
The CIT(A) held that only 50% of the sale consideration received in the year under consideration was chargeable to capital gains, following a previous ITAT decision in a related case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of emergency fund transfer to the AO for fresh verification due to lack of evidence before lower authorities. It confirmed the addition for unpaid demand drafts but partly allowed the appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance and Section 36(1)(viia) deduction.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the receipts were not in the nature of royalty under the DTAA or the Income Tax Act, as the assessee did not part with copyright. Consequently, as there was no Permanent Establishment in India, the income was not taxable.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even in ex-parte cases. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned. It also ruled that Education Cess is an allowable expenditure as per Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal due to the APA covering the assessment year. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of TP adjustments for sales commission, agreeing that the TPO's method of excluding material costs and depreciation from total cost was flawed. The Tribunal found the assessee's methodology, as accepted in prior years, to be reasonable.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is vitiated if the notice issued under Section 274 does not strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). This defect renders the penalty order invalid.