Loading ITAT cases…
166 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the compensation received was a capital receipt as the assessee's business and its intangible assets were acquired by the government. Section 28(ii)(d) was not applicable to the facts of the case.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received was a capital receipt as the assessee's business and its intangible assets were acquired by the government. Section 28(ii)(d) was not applicable to the facts of the case.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D based on surmise or conjecture. The AO must provide cogent reasons and demonstrate a proximate relationship between expenditure and exempt income, which was not done in this case.
The Tribunal found that while the AO's estimation of GP was necessary due to destroyed records, the addition made was excessive. Therefore, an estimated addition of Rs. 25 lakhs was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on interest and dividend income earned from investments/deposits parked with another cooperative society, even after the insertion of section 80P(4).
The Tribunal held that the VAT liability arising from the denial of input credit on hawala transactions, when discharged as tax and not penalty, is eligible for deduction under Section 37(1) read with Section 43B of the Act. However, the appeal regarding the disallowance of purchases was dismissed due to the admission of additional evidence without leave and lack of supporting evidence.
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to follow the DRP's directions regarding the computation of margins for comparable companies, complying with natural justice. The assessee's ground for including Synerzip Softech India Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable was dismissed due to lack of clarity on its business activities.
The Tribunal held that the issue was decided in favour of the assessee in a previous assessment year. Following the principle of consistency and relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Everest Kento Cylinders, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered did not make technical knowledge available to the Indian entity, thus not qualifying as Fees for Technical Services under the DTAA. Consequently, the receipts could not be taxed as Royalty or FTS.
The Tribunal held that only a portion of the land (40R out of 80.75R) was used for agricultural purposes based on the 7/12 extract. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54B only for that specific portion.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not applied his mind to the objects, activities, or conditions for registration. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(Exemption) to decide the application afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay and the assessee's non-compliance with the defect notice and failure to appear. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine.
The Tribunal held that employee's PF contribution must be deposited before the statutory due date for it to be allowed as a deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. For the interest disallowance, the Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had established the nexus between borrowed funds and capital withdrawals, remanding the issue for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not applied his mind to the objects, activities, or conditions for registration. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(Exemption) to decide the application afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that several companies identified as comparables were not functionally comparable due to factors like one-time events (disinvestment, amalgamation), different business models (fintech platform), or being in different service areas (predictive analytics).
The Tribunal noted that crucial evidence regarding the exact nature of services rendered was not available. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh determination after considering all relevant information and evidence.