Loading ITAT cases…
278 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in rejecting the Cost Plus Method (CPM) adopted by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that Rule 10B(1)(c)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, allows for the determination of the normal gross profit markup based on comparable uncontrolled transactions. The assessee's transactions with unrelated parties at the same Cost Plus 15% markup constituted a sufficient basis for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) under Rule 10B(1)(c). The Tribunal found that the TPO's reasoning for rejecting CPM, such as the complexity of cost allocation, was not a valid ground for discarding the method, especially when internal comparables were available and the accounting norms were consistent. The Tribunal also noted that the CPM had been accepted by the revenue for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to delete the transfer pricing adjustment made to software services. Regarding the adjustment for interest on delayed receivables, the Tribunal observed that since the assessee did not charge interest on delayed payments to non-AEs, it was justified in not charging interest to AEs. Accordingly, this adjustment was also directed to be deleted. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the ground regarding the supply of newly developed software to Indian customers.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat sales tax incentives as capital receipts, following previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case. The grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments were dismissed as not maintainable due to the assessee withdrawing its appeal after a MAP resolution.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding medical illness and the need for a fair hearing. It set aside the CIT's order, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked specific information to issue the notice for reopening, making the notice bad in law. The addition was also found unsustainable on merits due to being based on surmises.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 75,000, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence to support its claim of converting withdrawn currency. The burden of proof was on the assessee to explain the source of funds, which it did not discharge.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit, as the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to explain the source of these deposits. The inconsistent submissions regarding the nature of business further weakened the assessee's case.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding medical illness and the need for a fair hearing. It set aside the CIT's order, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as required under Section 151(1)(ii) for assessments initiated after three years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal, adopting a justice-oriented approach, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee was directed to file necessary details and affidavits to explain the delay to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as required under Section 151(1)(ii) for assessments initiated after three years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal solely on delay was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate the source of investment. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the quantum addition was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate the source of investment. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the quantum addition was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the assessee provided affidavits from the five individuals, confirmed by Shri Dhamale, and similar loans in preceding years were accepted. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as no exempt income was earned during the assessment year, and the amendment relied upon by the lower authorities was not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal restored the penalty issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it after the completion of quantum proceedings. This was done to ensure a fair adjudication based on the final quantum assessment.
The Tribunal restored the penalty issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it after the completion of quantum proceedings. This was done to ensure a fair adjudication based on the final quantum assessment.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to allow the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to file additional evidence, and also to provide an opportunity to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was bad in law and liable to be quashed, as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limit for AY 2015-16, following various High Court and ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, and Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO, held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted when considering condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that refusing to condone delay can lead to meritorious matters being dismissed prematurely. Given the totality of facts, the decision of the coordinate bench in similar cases, and the principles of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal considered the submissions for withdrawal and accordingly treated the appeals filed by the assessee as dismissed. The appeals were formally dismissed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, making the reassessment proceedings void. The Tribunal also found that the assessee, being an agriculturist, had provided sufficient explanation for the cash deposits with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was bad in law and void-ab-initio, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. Consequently, the reassessment and penalty orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was bad in law and void-ab-initio, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. Consequently, the reassessment and related penalty proceedings were also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the additions made were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is fully exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, and Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO, held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted when considering condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that refusing to condone delay can lead to meritorious matters being dismissed prematurely. Given the totality of facts, the decision of the coordinate bench in similar cases, and the principles of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the deduction under Section 80-IA should be computed based on profits as per the Act, including all allowable deductions, not just book profits. The Tribunal also affirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding MAT credit, finding no infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.