Loading ITAT cases…
63 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by directing the deletion of the notional interest adjustment on outstanding receivables, accepting the netting-off concept for a single AE. However, it dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding interest on ECB loans, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to recompute it at LIBOR + 200 basis points. The revenue's appeals for both A.Y. 2016-17 and A.Y. 2014-15, challenging the deletion of royalty payment adjustments, were dismissed, as the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, affirming that TNMM was the appropriate method and the assessee derived benefit from technical know-how.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as there was no tangible material to form a reasonable belief of escapement of income. The Assessing Officer acted on surmises without basis.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as there was no tangible material to form a reasonable belief of escapement of income. The Assessing Officer acted on surmises without basis.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as there was no tangible material to form a reasonable belief of escapement of income. The Assessing Officer acted on surmises without basis.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had already taken steps to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, rendering the appeal infructuous. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the assessee to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall of the order if the department ultimately does not accept the VSV application.
The Tribunal held that an unregistered JDA does not constitute a transfer under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, especially after the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001. Therefore, capital gains could not be taxed in AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as there was no tangible material to form a reasonable belief of escapement of income. The Assessing Officer acted on surmises without basis.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year without obtaining the prior approval of the specified authority as required by Section 151. Therefore, the assessment framed by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment beyond four years was invalid as it was not based on the assessee's failure to disclose material facts truly and fully. The AO's belief for reopening was formed on the basis of existing records, not new information.
The ITAT condoned the 20-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits after considering the delay.
The Tribunal held that while the PCIT correctly identified the assessment order as potentially erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, he erred in giving specific directions to the AO on how to complete the assessment. Citing the case of CIT v. Smt. Tasneem Z. Madraswala, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order to the extent of these specific directions, as it did not provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard on the specific outcome. However, since the original assessment order lacked any mention of the allowability of foreign exchange loss in accordance with ICDS-VI, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine this matter afresh based on ICDS-VI, pass a speaking order, and provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's decision on the limited issue of examining the allowability of foreign exchange loss as per ICDS-VI.
The Tribunal held that TNMM is the most appropriate method for determining royalty payments and directed the deletion of the adjustment. It also directed recomputation of interest on receivables and ECB loan by adopting LIBOR plus basis points.
The ITAT condoned the 242-day delay, citing a liberal approach in dealing with condonation applications. It noted that the Ld. FAA had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, particularly a crucial ground concerning the deduction of revenue expenditure. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the FAA's order and remitted the matter for a de novo adjudication on merits, directing the FAA to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.