Loading ITAT cases…
112 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if incriminating material indicating undisclosed income is found during the search. The assessment year in question was not abated as per the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1).
The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if incriminating material indicating undisclosed income is found during the search. The assessment year in question was not abated as per the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1).
The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if incriminating material indicating undisclosed income is found during the search. The assessment year in question was not abated as per the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1).
The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if incriminating material indicating undisclosed income is found during the search. The assessment year in question was not abated as per the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1).
The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if incriminating material indicating undisclosed income is found during the search. The assessment year in question was not abated as per the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1).
The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if incriminating material indicating undisclosed income is found during the search. The assessment year in question was not abated as per the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1).
The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if incriminating material indicating undisclosed income is found during the search. The assessment year in question was not abated as per the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1).
On the issue of disallowance under Section 14A (Grounds 3.5 to 3.8), the Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Era Infrastructure India Ltd. and the Delhi Tribunal's Special Bench in ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., held that the disallowance under Section 14A is to be restricted to only those investments which have generated exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, these grounds were allowed. On the issue of disallowance of reversal of provision for inventory (Grounds 3.9 to 3.11), the Tribunal found that the matter needed fresh examination by the AO. The assessee's contention was that the original provision had suffered tax, and taxing the reversal would lead to double taxation. The Tribunal held that the fact of whether the provision had already suffered tax and if the reversal pertained to such taxed amount needed verification. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the AO with a direction to verify these facts and allow the deduction if the entire provision had suffered tax and the reversal was out of that provision, ensuring the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not record any specific findings or decisions on the Transfer Pricing grounds (Grounds 2.1 to 2.12) or the additional depreciation ground (Grounds 3.1 to 3.4) in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF and ESI must be remitted before the due date as per the explanation to Section 36(1)(va) for it to be allowable under Section 43B. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that MTM losses on forex derivatives are allowable as revenue expenditure if properly linked to transactions, but the assessee failed to provide sufficient linkage. The Tribunal allowed depreciation on networking equipment at the higher rate, following High Court precedent.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering it unintentional. The Tribunal also decided to remit the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits, directing that the assessee be granted a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that MTM losses on forex derivatives are allowable as revenue expenditure if properly linked to transactions, but the assessee failed to provide sufficient linkage. The Tribunal allowed depreciation on networking equipment at the higher rate, following High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that MTM losses on forex derivatives are allowable as revenue expenditure if properly linked to transactions, but the assessee failed to provide sufficient linkage. The Tribunal allowed depreciation on networking equipment at the higher rate, following High Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if incriminating material indicating undisclosed income is found during the search. The assessment year in question was not abated as per the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1).
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the unsigned order, finding it to be ab-initio void. The Tribunal held that the unsigned order passed under Section 263 was invalid and therefore set aside.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if incriminating material indicating undisclosed income is found during the search. The assessment year in question was not abated as per the Second Proviso to Section 153A(1).
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being less educated and dependent on professionals, had a bonafide belief that his case was being represented. Due to the failure of his consultants, the assessee should not be penalized with ex-parte orders.
The Tribunal addressed various grounds, partly allowing the appeal. Regarding the inclusion of 'Celstream Technologies Pvt. Ltd.' as a comparable, the Tribunal found it functionally dissimilar to the assessee, which provides basic software development services, while the comparable is in chip and semiconductor design. Therefore, the TPO was directed to exclude this company. For 'ThreeSixty Logica Testing Services Pvt.Ltd', 'Black Pepper Technologies Pvt.Ltd', 'Aptus Software Labs Pvt.Ltd', and 'G.1' (company name not fully provided), the Tribunal noted insufficient details from annual reports and remanded these companies to the AO/TPO for reconsideration of the assessee's objections in accordance with law. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to compute the correct margins of retained comparables. On working capital adjustment, following a co-ordinate bench decision in Huawei Technologies India (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to it and directed the TPO to allow it. For risk adjustment, the assessee was directed to furnish documents to establish differences in risk for the TPO to consider. Grounds 12.9-12.10 were not argued and thus not adjudicated. Grounds 13-14 concerning interest under section 234B were considered consequential. The Tribunal expressly left undecided grounds not argued by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while receivables arising from international transactions are indeed international transactions as per the Explanation to Section 92B(1), a credit period must be granted to the AE. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's limited prayer, referencing its own decision in *Xchanging Solutions Ltd. vs. DCIT*. The Tribunal decided that a credit period of 90 days should be allowed for receivables. For any realization beyond 90 days, the arm's length interest rate should be LIBOR plus 300 basis points. The TPO is directed to recompute the ALP accordingly, after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal noted that it did not agree with the assessee's argument that no separate adjustment should be made if interest is not charged on delayed receivables from unrelated parties.
The Tribunal held that companies with a turnover exceeding Rs. 200 crores should be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The reasoning was based on the principle that turnover is a relevant criterion for comparability in transfer pricing analysis. The Tribunal followed the view of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd., which held turnover as a relevant factor. It also noted that the jurisdictional High Court had not decided on this issue. The Tribunal considered the decision in Autodesk India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, which also supported the exclusion of high-turnover companies. The Tribunal found that decisions cited by the revenue, which took a contrary view, were either per incuriam or relied on obiter dicta from the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal upheld the DRP's exclusion of companies based on the turnover filter. The Tribunal also noted that if these companies were excluded, the assessee's margin would be at arm's length, and other issues would become academic. The assessee was granted liberty to agitate other issues in subsequent assessment years or proceedings. The TPO was directed to compute the ALP accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee did not receive proper notice or opportunity to be heard. The mere generation of notice on the ITBA portal was not considered sufficient proof of issuance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee did not receive proper notice or opportunity to be heard. The mere generation of notice on the ITBA portal was not considered sufficient proof of issuance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee did not receive proper notice or opportunity to be heard. The mere generation of notice on the ITBA portal was not considered sufficient proof of issuance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee did not receive proper notice or opportunity to be heard. The mere generation of notice on the ITBA portal was not considered sufficient proof of issuance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee did not receive proper notice or opportunity to be heard. The mere generation of notice on the ITBA portal was not considered sufficient proof of issuance.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: On the issue of incorrect search keywords (Issue 1), the Tribunal found that the TPO had indeed used inappropriate keywords and had himself acknowledged the assessee's business as recruitment and temporary staffing. The Tribunal directed the TPO to conduct the search using the correct segment. On the issue of margin analysis and TNMM application (Issue 2), the Tribunal noted the assessee's grounds but the detailed findings and decision on this specific point are not fully elaborated in the provided text, though it is implied that the appeal was partly allowed. Regarding the rejection of comparables (Issue 3), the Tribunal observed that the TPO had not provided specific reasons for excluding the assessee's selected companies, and the DRP had not adjudicated on this. The Tribunal set aside this issue to the TPO/AO for fresh consideration. On the interest on delayed receivables (Issue 4), the Tribunal held that the computation should be made on the net amount (receivables less payables) and not on a standalone basis. It also directed the TPO to re-compute the interest using the correct parameters for average collection period and LIBOR-based interest rates, setting aside the issue to the TPO/AO. On the disallowance of belated ESI/PF remittance (Issue 5), the Tribunal dismissed this ground, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CHECKMATE SERVICES PVT LTD, which held that delayed employee contributions result in permanent disallowance under Section 36(1)(va). The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear during assessment proceedings and failed to furnish details. However, considering the assessee's prayer for a fresh examination and the need for substantiating its claim, the case was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee did not receive proper notice and the adjournment request was not acknowledged. The ex-parte orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee did not receive proper notice or opportunity to be heard. The mere generation of notice on the ITBA portal was not considered sufficient proof of issuance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is valid, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal also upheld that such disallowance can be made under Section 143(1)(a) based on information available in the return and Form 3CD.
The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF and ESI must be remitted before the due date specified under the respective employee welfare legislation for it to be allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal also restored two grounds related to the amount of disallowance and the timing of payment due to a holiday to the Assessing Officer for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects and activities, including promoting Vedic education and providing relief to the poor, are charitable in nature. The Tribunal distinguished previous rulings and emphasized the universal appeal of Vedas and the trust's broader charitable endeavors.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of payments made to overseas subsidiaries under Section 40(a)(i) to the AO for verification of submissions regarding Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) and the 'make available' clause. The revenue's appeal on a related issue was also remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects and activities, including promoting Vedic education and providing relief to the poor, are charitable in nature. The Tribunal distinguished previous rulings and emphasized the universal appeal of Vedas and the trust's broader charitable endeavors.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1: The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention regarding the turnover filter. It directed the exclusion of the 7 companies listed in ground No. 11.5.2 from the list of comparable companies, as their turnover was admitted to be above Rs. 200 crores, which cannot be compared with companies having a turnover below Rs. 200 crores. This aligns with the assessee's argument and the principle applied to the SWD services segment. Issue 2: The Tribunal held that Domex E Data Pvt. Ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparable companies. It found merit in the assessee's argument that this company is engaged in KPO services, which cannot be equated or compared with a company rendering ITeS. This decision was based on several ITAT decisions cited by the assessee, overturning the DRP's view that ITeS and KPO are the same. The judgment does not explicitly mention Manipal Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. in the final holding, but the context suggests it was considered alongside Domex E Data Pvt. Ltd. Issue 3: The Tribunal noted that the export turnover filter issue for Datamatics Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was not raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, it set aside this issue to the TPO/AO for verification. If the assessee's contention regarding the export turnover filter for FY 2015-16 is found to be correct, the profit margin of this company for that year should be excluded from the 3-year average profit calculation. Operative Directions: The TPO is directed to compute the ALP in the ITeS segment as per the directions in the order, after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. None of the other grounds in the ITeS segment were pressed for adjudication. The appeal is treated as partly allowed.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of payments made to overseas subsidiaries under Section 40(a)(i) to the AO for verification of submissions regarding Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) and the 'make available' clause. The revenue's appeal on a related issue was also remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the issue of interest on deferred receivables should be set aside to the AO/TPO for reconsideration in conformity with the referred judgments. It was deemed appropriate to treat deferred receivables as an independent international transaction. The Tribunal further held that the interest rate should be determined based on commercial principles for international transactions, specifically referencing the London Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR) plus 2%, relying on the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. Regarding the SWD segment comparables, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to consider the correct margins while computing the ALP in accordance with the directions given in the order, implying a review of the comparability analysis. General grounds were not adjudicated separately. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have verified the cash book and confirmations filed by the assessee. It directed the AO to examine the deposits in light of CBDT instructions regarding demonetization period deposits and to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' PF/ESI contributions, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. It also held that such disallowances can be made under section 143(1)(a) based on information available.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee brought the fact of salary payment dates and PF deposit timelines for the first time before it. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the actual dates of salary and PF payments.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed as the assessee had not claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) with respect to the interest income from RECL.
The Tribunal upheld the application of a turnover filter, directing the exclusion of companies with turnovers significantly higher than the assessee's. This decision was based on previous rulings that consider turnover a relevant criterion for comparability in transfer pricing.
The Tribunal held that ESOP expenditure is deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. Biocon Limited. The issue of excess dividend distribution tax was remitted to the Assessing Officer for consideration based on a pending Special Bench decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was because the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A), who decided the case ex parte.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue. Regarding Ground No. 1, concerning the Rs. 75 lakhs addition, the Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs. 75 lakhs, observing that these were approximate figures and the Assessing Officer had made the addition without verifying the nature of the transactions. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from this view. Regarding Ground No. 2, concerning the Rs. 1,37,68,229/- addition based on the seized diary, the Tribunal noted the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings that the entries were advance payments for various purposes. The assessee had offered a peak negative balance of Rs. 36,46,167/- as undisclosed income due to the difficulty in correlating diary entries with books of account. The Assessing Officer had considered only the receipts totaling Rs. 1,74,14,396/- and overlooked the payments. The Tribunal found that the seized document's content should be appreciated as per its nature, and the Assessing Officer erred by considering only receipts and not payments. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding of sustaining only the peak negative balance, finding no prejudice to the Revenue. Consequently, the penalty appeal was also dismissed as the quantum appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that teaching Vedas, in this context, is not exclusively a religious activity but rather a charitable one, falling under education and relief of the poor. The assessee's other charitable activities further supported this classification.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was because the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A), who decided the case ex parte.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was because the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A), who decided the case ex parte.
The Tribunal held that prior to July 1, 2016, Form 3CL did not certify the amount of deduction, and therefore, the AO could not restrict the eligible weighted deduction based on it. Expenses for clinical trials conducted outside the approved facility are eligible for weighted deduction.