Loading ITAT cases…
103 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal remitted the issue of comparable company selection back to the DRP for fresh adjudication and allowed the assessee's claim for working capital adjustment, following previous tribunal decisions. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the correct total income and tax computation.
The Tribunal held that the DRP directions, not containing the mandatory DIN as per CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019, were invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the DRP order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that provision for doubtful debts should be considered as an operating expense when computing the profit level indicator of comparable companies. This decision was based on previous rulings by the Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court.
The Tribunal deleted additions made towards unaccounted cash receipts, finding them to be unsubstantiated. However, it upheld additions made at 8% on contract receipts through banking channels as reasonable profit estimation.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not consider the documents submitted by the assessee to prove timely payment. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the NFAC for reconsideration of these documents.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 powers. The AO had made a conscious decision to assess the surrendered amount as business income after due verification, and the PCIT cannot substitute his own opinion for that of the AO.
The Tribunal deleted additions made towards unaccounted cash receipts, finding them to be unsubstantiated. However, it upheld additions made at 8% on contract receipts through banking channels as reasonable profit estimation.
The Tribunal deleted additions made towards unaccounted cash receipts, finding them to be unsubstantiated. However, it upheld additions made at 8% on contract receipts through banking channels as reasonable profit estimation.
The Tribunal deleted additions made towards unaccounted cash receipts, finding them to be unsubstantiated. However, it upheld additions made at 8% on contract receipts through banking channels as reasonable profit estimation.
The Tribunal decided on various grounds concerning the inclusion and exclusion of comparable companies and computational errors. For Vitae International Accounting Services (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal found it functionally similar to the assessee and directed its inclusion in the final list, dismissing the assessee's ground for exclusion. For Ultramarine & Pigment Ltd., the Tribunal directed its exclusion as per the DRP's directions, noting it failed the employment cost filter. For I Services India (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal, relying on a coordinate bench decision in Prism Networks vs. ACIT, remanded the issue to the AO/TPO for reconsideration based on annual reports filed by the assessee, stating that exclusion solely because it didn't appear in the TPO's search matrix was incorrect. Grounds related to the exclusion of Sundaram Business Services Ltd., R Systems International Ltd, DKM Online PVt Ltd, Genius Consultants Ltd, and I Services India Pvt. Ltd. were dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to compute correct margins for the ITeS segment, rectifying computational errors and ensuring compliance with DRP directions, allowing Ground No. 26 for statistical purposes. Grounds 12-13 were allowed, and Grounds 15, 20-23 were dismissed as not pressed. Grounds 27-28 were consequential. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's lack of familiarity with the ITBA portal and granted an opportunity to present their case. The issue was remitted back to the NFAC/CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not consider all the details filed by the assessee and did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for closing stock, finding the correction of manual inventory to computerized was not an afterthought and supported by GP rates. It also deleted the addition for agricultural income, stating the assessee failed to prove it was genuine agricultural income rather than business income from land tenancy.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding the TP adjustment for royalty payment, the Tribunal noted that it had consistently held in the assessee's own case for multiple earlier assessment years (2009-10 to 2016-17 and 2018-19) that the payment of royalty was at arm's length. Citing its own previous orders, the Tribunal held that the payment of royalty for the year under consideration should also be accepted as at arm's length. This issue was decided in favor of the assessee. 2. Concerning the TP adjustment for interest on CCDs, premium on repayment, and interest on RDBs, the Tribunal referred to its own decisions in the assessee's case for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16. In those decisions, the Tribunal had upheld the assessee's TP study for arriving at interest rates based on average rupee cost compared to SBI prime lending rate, and had restored the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh orders. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored this issue to the AO/TPO for a decision as per law, partly allowing the ground for statistical purposes. 3. For the short credit of TDS, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the assessee's eligibility for the entire claimed credit and pass an order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Operative directions: The royalty issue was decided in favor of the assessee. The interest on CCDs/RDBs issue was remitted to the AO/TPO. The TDS issue was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in disallowing expenses related to dividend income under Section 115BBD if no dividend was received. It also directed the AO to recompute deductions under Section 10AA as per DRP directions and to verify TDS credit and MAT credit claims.
The Tribunal held that since the amount was a transfer from the assessee's own joint account with his wife, which had a sufficient opening balance, it could not be considered unexplained money. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was deleted.
The Tribunal found it just and fair to remit the issue back to the NFAC for a fresh consideration. This decision was made to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal allowed the legal ground raised by the assessee. It held that the assessment order, draft assessment order, and DRP order were passed in the name of a non-existent entity, M/s SKF Technologies India Private Limited, despite the revenue authorities being aware of the merger and the consequent cessation of the entity's existence. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CLSA India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT. The reasoning was that an order passed in the name of a non-existent company, when the revenue has knowledge of this fact, is void ab initio and does not survive. The principle is that the amalgamating company loses its entity upon amalgamation. The Tribunal noted that the decisions cited by the revenue were prior to the Supreme Court's judgment in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which was followed by the Bombay High Court. Consequently, the legal ground was allowed, and the other grounds on merits were left open.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the NFAC for fresh consideration on merits. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case after failing to comply with previous notices.
The Tribunal, following a previous consistent order, directed the AO to estimate the income at 6% of the suppressed turnover instead of 8%. This provides partial relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits, as evidenced by the questionnaire issued and the assessee's replies. Therefore, the PCIT's order to revise the assessment was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and reduced the estimated profit on suppressed turnover from 8% to 6%. The assessee was granted partial relief.
The Tribunal held that payments for software licenses are not royalty under the DTAA, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, there was no liability to deduct tax at source. The deletion of interest and penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that payments for software licenses are not royalty under the DTAA, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, there was no liability to deduct tax at source. The deletion of interest and penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the notional interest on delayed receivables should be remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal referred to its own decision in Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd. (IT(TP)A No.209/Bang/2021), which, in turn, relied on the Special Bench decision in Instrumentation Corpn. Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's decision in Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that while outstanding receivables could be considered an international transaction akin to a loan, a proper inquiry into the business/commercial arrangement, the impact on working capital, and the reasons for the delay was necessary. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted to the AO/TPO to decide in conformity with the referred judgments, directing them to apply the LIBOR rate for credits beyond 60 days. Regarding the TP adjustment for MSS, the judgment does not explicitly state a finding or decision, but the overall result indicates partial allowance. For the levy of interest under Section 234D, the Tribunal stated it should be computed correctly in accordance with law. The ground challenging the notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A and initiation of penalty proceedings was dismissed as preposterous. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of salary reimbursement disallowance to the AO to reconsider in light of the Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. case and evidence filed by the assessee. The ground regarding the calculation of total assessed income was also restored to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and reduced the estimated profit on suppressed turnover from 8% to 6%. The assessee was granted partial relief.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding receipt of Rs. 5,50,000 as lease deposit and Rs. 2,50,000 as sundry receipts/gifts offered to tax should be considered. A deduction of Rs. 6,50,000 was granted, and only Rs. 2,16,000 was brought to tax.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for another opportunity. The case was remitted back to the AO to pass an order after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not maintained books of account, there was no requirement to get them audited. Therefore, penalty under Section 271B was not leviable, and if any penalty was to be levied for not maintaining books, it should have been under Section 271A.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80-IA. The delay in filing Form 10CCB was due to technical glitches beyond the assessee's control, and the return was filed within the due date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to proportionate deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for income derived from regular members, but not for income from non-members. The interest income from scheduled banks was also held to be not deductible under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's letter requesting time to provide details before passing the assessment order. This inaction led the assessee to believe an extension was granted, and therefore, the assessee was not guilty of contumacious conduct warranting the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with NFAC notices due to the Principal Officer's unfamiliarity with the ITBA portal. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the case to the NFAC for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have considered the net result of F&O transactions as per a previous ITAT order and directed the AO to pass a consequential order. For the subsequent year, the AO was directed to consider the outcome of the 2014-15 assessment.
The Tribunal allowed grounds 2 to 4, relating to the transfer pricing adjustment for AMP expenses. The Tribunal noted that no adverse inference was drawn by the TPO in respect of the manufacturing segment, implying acceptance of the overall margins for that segment. Respectfully following the decision of the Delhi High Court in Sony Ericsson (supra), the Tribunal directed the TPO to delete the adjustment made towards AMP expenses. This decision was based on the reasoning that the AMP expenditure was incurred for the Appellant's own business and not for the AE. The Tribunal also allowed ground 5, concerning the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G. The Tribunal noted that this issue was settled by coordinate benches in the cases of Sling Media (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT and First American (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT. Following these precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the payments made by the assessee towards CSR that also form part of the deduction under Section 80G and then grant the deduction claimed in accordance with law. The Tribunal's reasoning was that expenditure under Section 80G is claimed while computing 'Total Taxable Income' and denying this benefit merely because it forms part of CSR would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of the legislature. The Tribunal explicitly left undecided any issue related to the incorrect levy of interest under Section 234B, as it was not discussed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have considered the net result of F&O transactions as per a previous ITAT order and directed the AO to pass a consequential order. For the subsequent year, the AO was directed to consider the outcome of the 2014-15 assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO had failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the sources of the assessee's investments, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings initiated by the PCIT were upheld.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a delay in filing Form No. 67 is not fatal to the FTC claim, as Rule 128(9) is directory and DTAA provisions override the Act. However, the issue of whether FTC is available for income earned abroad but taxed in India requires further examination by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and found that the assessee had filed a return under a new PAN which was accepted, and the disputed assessment was under an old PAN.
The Tribunal noted that a recent Supreme Court judgment on the interpretation of Section 2(15) proviso and Section 11 was not available to the lower authorities. It also observed that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's argument about excluding interest income from commercial receipts and the contention of being a 'State' under Article 289.
The Tribunal noted that a recent Supreme Court judgment on the interpretation of Section 2(15) proviso and Section 11 was not available to the lower authorities. It also observed that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's argument about excluding interest income from commercial receipts and the contention of being a 'State' under Article 289.
The Tribunal noted that a recent Supreme Court judgment on the interpretation of Section 2(15) proviso and Section 11 was not available to the lower authorities. It also observed that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's argument about excluding interest income from commercial receipts and the contention of being a 'State' under Article 289.
The Tribunal noted that a recent Supreme Court judgment on the interpretation of Section 2(15) proviso and Section 11 was not available to the lower authorities. It also observed that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's argument about excluding interest income from commercial receipts and the contention of being a 'State' under Article 289.
The Tribunal noted that a recent Supreme Court judgment on the interpretation of Section 2(15) proviso and Section 11 was not available to the lower authorities. It also observed that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's argument about excluding interest income from commercial receipts and the contention of being a 'State' under Article 289.
The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee is not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) in India. The Tribunal analyzed the meaning of 'make available' under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA Tax Treaty, stating that the technical knowledge, skills, etc., must remain with the recipient even after the contract ends, enabling them to utilize the knowledge independently. In this case, the Indian customers repeatedly required the assessee's services and reports, and were not equipped to conduct the testing/research independently. The utility of the report ended shortly after its rendition, and customers had to continuously refer to the assessee for understanding the reports. Therefore, the services did not 'make available' the technical knowledge. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 was allowed. Grounds 2 and 3 were consequential and did not require adjudication. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not participate before the NFAC, leading to an ex-parte decision. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the NFAC for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1)(a) for employee's contribution to PF/ESI not paid within the due date stipulated in the respective Acts was justified. The assessee's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1)(a) for employee's contribution to PF/ESI not paid within the due date stipulated in the respective Acts was justified. The assessee's appeals were dismissed.