Loading ITAT cases…
115 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the corrigendum issued by the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal was not tenable because the underlying revision order had been quashed by the ITAT, making the assessment order infructuous. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s original decision to allow the appeal should stand.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the erroneous claim was bona fide, as per Section 270A(6)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, it was not a case of under-reporting of income, and the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that payments received by the assessee for the sale of online advertisement space are not taxable as royalty, following numerous coordinate bench decisions. Consequently, the grounds related to the taxability of these receipts were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly considered the assessee's submissions regarding sub-segmental profitability (slim vs. non-slim) and the distinction between AE and non-AE transactions. The matter was remitted back to the TPO for a fresh TP analysis.
The Tribunal held that interest on receivables is an international transaction and directed the TPO to recalculate the interest using a specified rate. The issue of deduction under Section 80G was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as the assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, but rather claimed exemption under a wrong head. The addition was substantially reduced in the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of transfer pricing adjustment and capacity utilization to the AO/TPO for re-examination, directing them to follow previous orders and provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The issue of incorrect operating cost was also remitted for verification of correct expenses.
On Ground No. 5 (Transfer Pricing), the Tribunal noted that on identical facts, a coordinate bench had decided the issue in favour of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17. Citing previous orders, specifically for AY 2015-16 and AY 2012-13, where the TPO had accepted royalty payments at 4% as arm's length after considering comparable uncontrolled agreements, the Tribunal held that the royalty payment at 4% in the current AY is to be treated as at arm's length. Therefore, this ground was allowed. On Ground No. 6.3 (Notional Income), the Tribunal observed that the AO had not examined the issue due to paucity of time as the assessment was time-barred. In the interest of justice and equity, the matter was restored to the file of the AO to decide afresh, directing the AO to examine whether the interest income was real or notional and, if notional, not to bring it to tax. This ground was disposed of with these observations. On Ground No. 6.4 (TCS Credit), the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the assessee's claim and decide in accordance with the law. This ground was disposed of accordingly. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any corporate tax issues not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue of LTCG on shares to the AO, directing an opportunity for the assessee to rebut evidence. The addition for unvouched expenses was sustained as the assessee conceded to it.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not grant proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO's change of accounting method was not sustainable as the assessee had consistently followed the project completion method, which was accepted by the department in earlier years. The Tribunal directed the AO to revert to the project completion method.
The Tribunal decided on several issues. For grounds related to the assessment and reference to the TPO (Grounds 1.1-1.4), the Tribunal did not provide a specific finding in the excerpt provided, but the overall result suggests some issues were remitted or partly allowed. Regarding the conduct of transfer pricing proceedings in a faceless manner (Ground 2) and violation of natural justice (Ground 3), the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's finding in the provided text. However, the fact that the appeal was partly allowed suggests that some of the assessee's contentions were accepted or at least considered. For Ground 4, concerning the assessment order not conforming to DRP directions on set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO/TPO for verification and to grant the benefit of set-off of brought forward business loss (para 29). For Ground 5, regarding the rejection of the aggregated approach, the judgment does not explicitly state the finding. For Grounds 6 to 9, concerning comparability analysis, filters, and proportionate adjustments, the judgment does not provide specific findings in the excerpt. For Grounds 10 and 11, concerning adjustments for interest on trade receivables and corporate guarantee, the judgment does not provide specific findings in the excerpt. For Grounds 13-18, concerning book profits, MAT credit, foreign tax credit, TDS credit, and refunds, the Tribunal remitted these issues to the AO/TPO for reconsideration after verifying the records (para 33). Ground 21 was dismissed as preposterous (para 35). The overall result was that the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes (para 36). The ratio decidendi for the remitted issues is that the AO/TPO should verify the records and grant the appropriate benefits or reconsider the issues.
On the issue of the upper turnover filter (Ground No. 11), the Tribunal followed the coordinate bench decision in Altair Engineering India P. Ltd. and the reasoning in Dell International Services India (P) Ltd., which held that excluding companies with turnover above a certain threshold (Rs. 200 crores in that case) was justified, especially when the assessee's turnover was within a reasonable range. The Tribunal directed the TPO to apply the upper turnover filter. Regarding notional interest on receivables (Grounds 15-18), the Tribunal, following the Karnataka High Court in PCIT v. AMD (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Aurionpro Solutions Ltd., held that deferred receivables constitute an independent international transaction. The TPO was directed to consider interest at LIBOR + 2% and a credit period of 30 days. For the TDS and advance tax credit issue (Ground No. 19), the Tribunal noted that relevant amalgamation documents were submitted but not considered by the AO. The issue was remitted back to the AO to consider TDS and advance tax in the name of the predecessor company, Marlab Software P. Ltd., and decide in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that transactions with local vendors, where the terms are not influenced by the Associated Enterprise (AE), cannot be treated as deemed international transactions under Section 92B(2) and thus cannot be included for ALP adjustment. The TPO's finding that terms of purchase from local vendors were influenced by the AE was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal noted that the DRP upheld the TPO's decision without proper analysis and without calling for relevant documents. The Tribunal also found no merit in the DRP's contention regarding the segregation of accounts for AEs and non-AEs, as the raw materials procured from both were consumed in making sales to a single customer who was not an AE. Therefore, the TPO was directed to consider only transactions with AEs for ALP determination. The Tribunal did not provide specific findings on grounds 3 to 8 concerning the inclusion/exclusion of comparables and working capital adjustments, as the primary issue of deemed international transactions was decided in favour of the assessee, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the specific adjudication on each comparable company and other grounds due to the primary finding.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's valuation method using Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) was appropriate, but directed the AO to apply the beneficial 10% tax rate on long-term capital gains for non-residents, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Cairn UK Holdings Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged his onus by providing evidence of consultancy receipts and offering this income to tax. Since the income was already taxed, adding it again under Section 68 would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's valuation method using Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) was appropriate, but directed the AO to apply the beneficial 10% tax rate on long-term capital gains for non-residents, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Cairn UK Holdings Ltd.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the transfer pricing adjustment, the Tribunal noted the assessee's argument about the turnover filter and the reliance on *Barracuda Networks*. However, the judgment excerpt provided does not contain the Tribunal's final decision on this specific issue, only the arguments presented. The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68, treating the amount of loan converted into equity, is to be deleted, as the AO did not record any adverse finding regarding the person or source of the credit, and no specific provision was violated. Concerning the disallowance of fees for IT and corporate services, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted details of expenses and deducted tax at source. The lower authorities had disallowed the expenses without considering the furnished details. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted this issue back to the AO for verification of the submitted details and to decide the claim as per law, providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For the disallowance of PF/ESI contribution, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the payment for March 2018. It noted that the Supreme Court in *Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT-1* held that employee contributions are not allowable if not paid within the due date specified in the respective Acts. The Tribunal remitted this issue to the AO to consider the evidence and decide the allowability in light of *Checkmate* and *Vardhaman Chemicals*.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court judgment disallows employee contributions paid late but allows employer contributions paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). However, the issue of disallowance of employer contributions was not litigated before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement and not mandatory. Non-furnishing of Form 67 before the due date is not fatal to the claim for FTC, especially when Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override the Act's provisions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to properly present its case before the lower authorities and had raised grounds citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court judgment disallows employee contributions paid late but allows employer contributions paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). However, the issue of disallowance of employer contributions was not litigated before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the provision for discount is an allowable expenditure, following its own prior decision on identical facts. It also held that insurance charges were not attributable to the delivery of computer software outside India and were not included in export turnover, thus should not be excluded.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice under Section 148. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed capital used for business purposes, including investments in shares of another company in a similar line of activity, is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii). It also held that legal and professional charges incurred for such business activities are allowable expenses.
The tribunal decided that the assessee's claim for depreciation on fixed assets was the sole issue in the appeal. The judgment details are not fully provided to ascertain the final decision on depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was indeed barred by limitation. The DRP's directions were passed on 24.01.2022. According to Section 144C(13) of the Act, the final assessment order should have been passed within one month from the end of the month in which the directions were received, which would be 28.02.2022. Since the impugned final assessment order was passed on 05.08.2022, it was beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal found that the judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee categorically held that the final assessment order must be passed in compliance with the time frame stipulated under Section 144C(13). Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned final assessment order is bad in law and barred by limitation. As the final assessment order was quashed on this ground, the other grounds on merits were not adjudicated and were left open. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursements made by GIPL to Google LLC for seconded employees do not constitute FTS or FIS. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Flipkart Internet (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to CGTM, France were not in the nature of fees for technical services and therefore did not attract the provisions of Section 195 for TDS. Consequently, the assessee was not liable for TDS or interest under Section 201(1A).
The Tribunal held that the payments made to CGTM, France were not in the nature of fees for technical services and therefore did not attract the provisions of Section 195 for TDS. Consequently, the assessee was not liable for TDS or interest under Section 201(1A).
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's premises were searched, the assessment should have been completed under Section 153A, not Section 153C. The assessment framed under Section 153C was considered an incurable defect, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursements made by GIPL to Google LLC for seconded employees do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the Act or Fees for Included Services (FIS) under the India-US DTAA. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Flipkart Internet (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, which was followed by coordinate benches of the Bangalore Tribunal in Biesse Manufacturing Company (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT and Goldman Sachs Services (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT. The reasoning was that the employer-employee relationship remained with Google LLC, and the payments were essentially reimbursements for salaries paid by the assessee to its employees who were temporarily working for GIPL. The Tribunal noted that the seconded employees were on the payroll of the assessee, and tax was duly deducted on their salaries, including amounts paid in foreign exchange. The Tribunal also referred to a CESTAT decision in Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I, which held that global employees working under the appellant were their employees and there was no supply of manpower service. Consequently, the reimbursements were not liable for tax deduction under Section 195, and the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) was not warranted. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the interest levied under Section 201(1A) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal. It reasoned that if the return is treated as non-est, there is no obligation to pay tax on it. Furthermore, if the original return's tax was paid and the entire assessed income is disputed, the appeal should not be dismissed on technical grounds.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities were not justified in treating the profit from the 'Ramya Residency' project as business income when a prior settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme had accepted it as capital gains. The AO was directed to treat the income as short-term or long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the rejection of certain comparable companies based on the 'persistent loss' filter needs fresh consideration. Regarding notional interest on trade receivables, the Tribunal remanded the issue for recalculation if invoices were not received within the credit period, allowing a modified interest rate.
The Tribunal held that the AO/TPO should benchmark the international transactions of purchase of raw materials, consumables, and spares by adopting the valuation made by the customs authorities for these goods to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP). This issue was remitted to the AO for de novo consideration. Consequently, issues in ground Nos. 2(a) & 2(b) were also remitted to the AO/TPO for reconsideration. The Tribunal found that other grounds relating to transfer pricing (2(c) to (f)) and grounds 3, 4, and 5 were infructuous and dismissed. Regarding grounds 6 & 7, concerning depreciation and set-off of business losses, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to pass a fresh assessment order in conformity with the directions of the DRP. Interest under section 234D was held to be consequential and mandatory. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the penalty proceedings under section 270A, but the overall result indicates a partial allowance of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the grounds related to limitation (Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1) were not argued by the assessee's counsel and were therefore dismissed as not pressed. Regarding the AMP expenses, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to demonstrate tangible material evidence of an international transaction concerning AMP expenditure. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd, which held that if the Indian entity satisfies the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and its operating margins are higher than comparable companies, no further separate compensation for AMP expenses is warranted, the Tribunal found that the assessee's operating profit margins (5.01% in manufacturing and 4.52% in distribution) were higher than the comparable companies (4.04% in manufacturing and 4.46% in distribution). Therefore, the Tribunal held that the AO/TPO was not justified in making a transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenses and deleted the addition made by the AO. The ground regarding the appropriateness of TNMM for the trading segment (Ground No. 4) was rendered infructuous as no adjustment was made by the AO/TPO/DRP. Grounds relating to interest under section 234B and penalty under section 270A (Grounds 5 and 6) were consequential and allowed as a result of the deletion of the primary addition. The Tribunal allowed grounds 3 to 3.13, holding that AMP expenditure is not an international transaction and no adjustment is warranted.
The Tribunal held that Apitco Ltd. and Global Procurement Consultants Ltd. were not good comparables for benchmarking the market support services provided by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude these companies from the list of comparables.
The Tribunal held that the assessee has a right to object to the guidance value under Section 50C and that the authorities must consider these objections. The case was remanded to the AO to consider the assessee's objections and the valuer's report.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. Regarding the Rs. 8,00,000 deposit, the Tribunal found that the assessee's mother-in-law's bank statement showed withdrawals, and she confirmed the gift through a gift deed dated October 30, 2016. The Tribunal considered the gift deed as evidence and stated that the apparent should be considered real unless proven otherwise by the department. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee and his wife were not in India, and due to demonetization, he was compelled to deposit the cash received from his mother-in-law into his bank account. For the Rs. 2,30,000 deposit, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that it was sourced from past savings and withdrawals, which he was forced to deposit due to demonetization. The Tribunal cited several High Court and Tribunal decisions in support of its view. The other grounds raised by the assessee were considered academic and did not require adjudication. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 10,30,000 was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06 on merits regarding capital gains. The revenue's appeal for AY 2006-07 was dismissed due to low tax effect. The assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08 concerning mutual fund gains was dismissed as the exemption under Section 10(38) was not applicable.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06 on merits regarding capital gains. The revenue's appeal for AY 2006-07 was dismissed due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08 regarding gains on mutual funds was dismissed as the exemption under Section 10(38) was not applicable.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06 on merits regarding capital gains. The revenue's appeal for AY 2006-07 was dismissed due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08 regarding gains on mutual funds was dismissed as the exemption under Section 10(38) was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not use documents seized from a third party to make additions under Section 153A of the Act. The AO should have invoked Section 153C after recording satisfaction, as the scope of assessments under Section 153A and 153C are different.
The Tribunal directed the AO to pass a revised assessment order incorporating the second Order Giving Effect (OGE) from the TPO, which revised the TP adjustment in the manufacturing segment and interest on delayed receivables. The issue of expatriate salary reimbursement was remitted back to the AO/TPO for verification of additional evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06 on merits regarding capital gains. The revenue's appeal for AY 2006-07 was dismissed due to low tax effect. The assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08 concerning mutual fund gains was dismissed as the exemption under Section 10(38) was not applicable.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06 on merits regarding capital gains. The revenue's appeal for AY 2006-07 was dismissed due to low tax effect. The assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08 concerning mutual fund gains was dismissed as the exemption under Section 10(38) was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not use documents seized from a third party to make additions under Section 153A of the Act. The AO should have invoked Section 153C after recording satisfaction, as the scope of assessments under Section 153A and 153C are different.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not use documents seized from a third party to make additions under Section 153A of the Act. The AO should have invoked Section 153C after recording satisfaction, as the scope of assessments under Section 153A and 153C are different.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not use documents seized from a third party to make additions under Section 153A of the Act. The AO should have invoked Section 153C after recording satisfaction, as the scope of assessments under Section 153A and 153C are different.