Loading ITAT cases…
112 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the limitation issue (Ground No. 2), the Tribunal noted that grounds 2 and 5 were not pressed by the assessee and therefore did not require adjudication. On the issue of AMP expenses (Ground No. 3), the Tribunal, by respectfully following the decision of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, held that the Resale Price Method (RPM) should be adopted instead of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as applied by the TPO. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue were allowed. For the protective transfer pricing adjustment on account of import of finished goods (Ground No. 4), the Tribunal found that the facts were identical to other cases where it had been repeatedly held by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay that in the case of a distributor selling to uncontrolled entities without value addition, RPM is the most appropriate method and should be preferred over TNMM. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the AO/TPO and directed them to adopt RPM as the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price (ALP) of these transactions. Ground No. 1 was considered general in nature. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the amount in dispute, after considering the AO's order giving effect and the assessee's acceptance of the Rs. 12,40,048 assessment, was Rs. 1,39,64,186. This amount's tax effect was below the monetary limit for appeals.
The Tribunal held that the ESOP expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business and should be allowed as a revenue expenditure. The fact that the parent company also benefited indirectly from a motivated workforce was not a ground to deny the deduction.
The Tribunal, following a previous similar case, decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination. The CIT(A) is to consider whether the consultant was solely responsible for the fraudulent act and if the assessee's actions were bonafide.
The Tribunal, following a previous similar case, decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination. The CIT(A) is to consider whether the consultant was solely responsible for the fraudulent act and if the assessee's actions were bonafide.
The Tribunal, following a previous similar case, decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination. The CIT(A) is to consider whether the consultant was solely responsible for the fraudulent act and if the assessee's actions were bonafide.
The Tribunal found that the DRP did not adequately examine the assessee's submissions regarding comparable companies. Therefore, the issue of comparable selection was remitted back to the DRP for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2018-19 and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for the extended due date as they did not file an audit report and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It held that the applicability of the proviso to Section 2(15) should be decided on merits, not on default, and remanded the issue for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 when the assessee had already settled the dispute under the VSV scheme. The settlement under the VSV scheme covered the impugned transaction, making the revision proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal held that since the excess stock was generated from the business income and the assessees are traders of jewellery, it should be taxed as business income and not under Section 115BBE. The application of Section 69B was deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that since the excess stock was generated from the business income and the assessees are traders of jewellery, it should be taxed as business income and not under Section 115BBE. The application of Section 69B was deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory, and that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) overrides the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the denial of foreign tax credit for delayed filing of Form 67 was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for interior works was not a cost of improvement as it was incurred after the property was sold and possession was handed over. The Tribunal also noted that the agreement for sale itself included a sum for interior work to be completed by the vendor.
The Tribunal held that while the non-filing of Form No. 26A with the DGIT (Systems) might attract penalty, it should not lead to disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia). The issue was remitted to the AO for re-examination of Form No. 26A filed before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory, and that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) overrides the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the denial of foreign tax credit for delayed filing of Form 67 was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's order regarding the disallowance of GST, relying on Supreme Court and ITAT judgments. However, the issue of short TDS credit was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that goodwill arising on amalgamation is eligible for depreciation, directing the AO to verify and compute it accordingly. Other grounds related to interest and TDS were also directed for verification.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not followed the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in the final assessment order. Specifically, the AO failed to adhere to the DRP's directions concerning the allowance of claims under Section 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act, and the deduction under Section 80C. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was an NRI and that COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in force. Considering the submissions and the DRP's directions, the Tribunal decided to remand the issues back to the AO. The AO was directed to follow the DRP's directions as per specific paragraphs cited in the judgment (2.1.16, 2.1.17, 2.1.18, 2.1.8, 2.1.10, 2.1.15, and 2.1.19). The assessee was directed to produce necessary documents, and the AO was mandated to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. All grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that payments for payroll processing and leased line services are not in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify these payments based on established principles and case law, allowing the grounds for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal regarding the forex loss, noting it was a legal issue directly connected to the main issue and did not require new facts. The Tribunal held that the TPO might have erred by double-counting the forex loss. The AO/TPO was directed to verify the computation and allow the claim if the forex loss was indeed already considered in total expenses. The Tribunal held that companies should not be excluded from the list of comparables solely based on losses in two out of the preceding three assessment years. It directed the AO to reconsider comparables rejected under the 'persistent loss making' filter, verifying if they were consistently loss-making, in light of the cited decisions. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of inclusion of specific comparables to the AO for verification of their functional, asset, and risk (FAR) profile against that of the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that notional interest entries in loose sheets without corroborative evidence cannot be taxed. It also ruled that opening balances of advances from previous years cannot be considered as advances made in the current assessment years. The addition should be restricted to the peak credit of cash advances made in the relevant assessment years, after giving credit for income already disclosed by partners.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable list and remanded others for fresh consideration by the TPO. It also directed the AO/TPO to verify the assessee's submissions regarding markups on intra-group services.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submissions regarding past income and cash withdrawals but noted the lack of a cash flow statement or statement of affairs. While not fully accepting the assessee's explanation, the addition was restricted.
The Tribunal held that notional interest entries in loose sheets without corroborative evidence cannot be taxed. It also ruled that opening balances of advances from previous years cannot be considered as advances made in the current assessment years. The addition should be restricted to the peak credit of cash advances made in the relevant assessment years, after giving credit for income already disclosed by partners.
The Tribunal held that notional interest entries in loose sheets without corroborative evidence cannot be taxed. It also ruled that opening balances of advances from previous years cannot be considered as advances made in the current assessment years. The addition should be restricted to the peak credit of cash advances made in the relevant assessment years, after giving credit for income already disclosed by partners.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of indexation for computing capital gains on assets acquired through inheritance or gift must be calculated with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset, not the year the current assessee became the owner. The reasoning is that Section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deems the cost of acquisition to be the cost for which the previous owner acquired it. A harmonious reading of Sections 48 and 49, supported by judgments like CIT v Manjula J Shah and CIT v. Smt. Kaveri Thimmaiah, clarifies that for indexed cost of acquisition, the relevant year is the first year the asset was held by the previous owner. The Tribunal found that in this case, the assessee was the first holder, followed by his father, and then inheritance. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for indexation benefit from the initial acquisition dates. The AO was directed to re-compute the capital gains accordingly. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to notices from the CIT(A) and that the appeal was decided ex-parte. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with three effective opportunities for the assessee.
On the issue of ESOP expenditure disallowance, the Tribunal held that the claim is allowable as a deduction under Section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2016-2017, where identical ESOP expenditure cross-charged by the ultimate holding company was allowed. The reasoning was that the expenditure was incurred for the business of the assessee and was notional or fictional. The ratio is that ESOP expenses cross-charged by a holding company are deductible if incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance. Regarding the leave encashment claim, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification and to allow deduction as per law, following the decision in the case of Global E-Business Operations (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT. The ratio is that leave encashment actually paid is deductible under Section 43B(f), and the AO needs to verify the claim. For the tax credit of the merged entity, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the claim afresh and grant due tax credit as per law, acknowledging that advance tax paid by the merged entity should be credited to the assessee. The operative direction for the first issue is deletion of disallowance, and for the other two, it is remand to the AO.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity for an effective representation, emphasizing that the assessee should cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and the assessee had not participated before the NFAC. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of belated employee's contribution to PF and ESI can be made under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) as an 'incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return'. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services overruled earlier High Court decisions, making the issue no longer debatable.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., held that delayed payments of employee's contribution to PF/ESI are disallowable under Section 36(1)(va). Therefore, the additions made by the revenue authorities were justified.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI must be remitted before the due date specified under the relevant employee welfare legislation for it to be allowable under Section 43B. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., held that delayed payments of employee's contribution to PF/ESI are disallowable under Section 36(1)(va). Therefore, the additions made by the revenue authorities were justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had responded by submitting details and documents. The CIT(E) rejected the application without examining these submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for examination.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI must be remitted before the due date specified under the relevant employee welfare legislation for it to be allowable under Section 43B. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided documents like salary certificates and bank statements to support her claim of being a non-resident earning foreign salary income. The Tribunal decided that these facts needed examination by the AO.
The tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid beyond the due dates is valid, even when processed under section 143(1). This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal, following a previous decision, held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer. Specifically, the AO is directed to verify interest earned on investments made in co-operative societies.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing the assessee's non-resident status and the representative's inaction. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing the assessee's non-resident status and the representative's inaction. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that while the assessee's ownership of agricultural land was proven, the total explained sources of income amounted to approximately Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, the balance of Rs. 4,06,150/- was to be considered unexplained.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessment order was passed ex-parte. The CIT(A) heard the case on limited dates and passed the order hastily, without discussing the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) did not forward the evidence to the AO for examination. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the entire issue in dispute back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to dispose of the case after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and examining the submissions properly. The Tribunal refrained from commenting on the merits of the issue. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessment order is ex-parte and the appellate authority's order appears to be passed hastily without proper appreciation of evidence and submissions, a remand to the AO for fresh adjudication is warranted in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that mentioning a wrong section (68 instead of 69A) is not fatal. However, it found merit in the assessee's plea that confirming additions for inflated sales, already accounted for in the P&L, amounts to double addition.
The Tribunal found that the appeal before the CIT(A) was not time-barred considering the extension granted by the Supreme Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide any material to suggest that the agricultural income declared was inflated or sourced from elsewhere. The assessee had consistently declared similar agricultural income in previous and subsequent years, which were accepted. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society is a body corporate and liable for audit under the Co-Operative Societies Act. It also held that the assessee filed its return within the due date, making it eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance by the CIT(A) was not legally correct as there was no specific finding of defects in the books of account or purchases, and the audited accounts were not rejected. The sustenance of the disallowance without reasoning was also found to be unsustainable.