Loading ITAT cases…
125 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not respond to notices sent through the portal but was not served with physical notices. Considering the assessee's unfamiliarity with the procedures, the Tribunal felt that one more opportunity should be granted.
The Tribunal noted that the additions for interest income and sales tax refund were not justified as these were already included in the gross receipts. Regarding the profit on contract receipts, considering the facts and to cut short litigation, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the income at 5.5% instead of the 8% confirmed by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that their former auditor/accountant did not forward the hearing notices due to closure of business and non-payment of retainer fees. The Tribunal found the ex-parte order to be unreasonable and decided to grant another opportunity.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not respond to notices sent through the portal but was not served with physical notices. Considering the assessee's unfamiliarity with the procedures, the Tribunal felt that one more opportunity should be granted.
The Tribunal observed that the levy of interest under section 234A for 28 months was prima facie a mistake apparent from the record, as it should have been calculated only up to the date of filing the return. For AY 2022-23, a similar rectification was made by the CPC without levying interest. Therefore, for equity and justice, the issue regarding the levy of interest under section 234A for AY 2021-22 was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No.37/2016, disallowances of provisions for interest expenses and NPA are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on the enhanced business profit. Therefore, grounds related to these disallowances were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's initial mistake in applying for PAN as a company was corrected, and it should be recognized as a co-operative society from AY 2017-18 onwards. Regarding the unexplained cash, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify the source and application of funds.
The Tribunal held that the amount adjusted against the bank guarantee for non-completion of work is a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The disallowance of Rs. 3,00,000/- was therefore deleted. For the interest expense, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify the payment of interest in the subsequent year.
The Tribunal noted that the income from business or profession was reduced in the rectification order, but the interest under Section 234C remained unchanged. The Tribunal found this to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record.
The Tribunal held that no appeal should be filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs, as per the CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect.
The Tribunal found that there was a bonafide reason for the delay, citing the assessee's senior citizen status and reliance on a dormant email address for communication. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal condoned the delay.
The Tribunal observed that the levy of interest under section 234A for 28 months was prima facie a mistake apparent from the record, as it should have been calculated only up to the date of filing the return. For AY 2022-23, a similar rectification was made by the CPC without levying interest. Therefore, for equity and justice, the issue regarding the levy of interest under section 234A for AY 2021-22 was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The CIT(Exemptions) condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, citing a ransomware attack as a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that since the delay in filing Form 10B has been condoned by the CIT(Exemptions), it is appropriate to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions and without a remand report. The Assessing Officer also failed to submit a remand report when called upon by the NFAC. Thus, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not respond to notices sent through the portal but was not served with physical notices. Considering the assessee's unfamiliarity with the procedures, the Tribunal felt that one more opportunity should be granted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal due to a change of residence and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons cited by the assessee to be bonafide and sufficient. The matter was then considered on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and not licensed to carry on banking business under the Banking Regulation Act. The issue of whether the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural or rural development bank, and the applicability of Section 80P(4), requires further examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons cited by the assessee to be bonafide and sufficient. The Tribunal noted that there was no malafide intention and that substantial justice would be served by disposing of the matters on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act defines 'member' to include nominal and associate members. For interest earned on investments, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the interest was earned from investments with cooperative societies, and if so, it would be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Otherwise, it would be considered 'Income from other sources' under Section 56, with relief for cost of funds under Section 57.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned from credit facilities extended to members, including nominal and associate members, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Regarding interest/dividend from investments, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the investments were made with co-operative societies, and if so, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) would be allowed.
The CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the submissions and documents filed by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons cited by the assessee to be bonafide and sufficient. The Tribunal noted that there was no malafide intention and that the delay was caused by genuine difficulties and inability to act promptly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons cited by the assessee to be bonafide and sufficient, supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. Regarding the core issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and (d), the Tribunal, while not explicitly detailing the entire reasoning for each AY, indicated that the appeals were to be analyzed by the AO on similar bases as the principal issue regarding eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i)/(d). The Tribunal also addressed specific issues: a claim for deduction of guarantee commission was remanded to the AO for verification under Section 37(1); a disallowance of business loss was remanded for necessary verification; and the addition of e-stamping income was held not to be considered for deduction under Section 80P(2), but the AO was directed to consider the alternate claim for expenditure incurred on e-stamping in accordance with law. The appeals were ultimately decided on these grounds, leading to a mixed outcome.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons cited by the assessee to be bonafide and sufficient. The Tribunal noted that there was no malafide intention and that substantial justice would be done by disposing of the matters on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 122 days, citing sufficient reasons and relevant case law. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal determined that the issue required further detailed examination by the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons cited by the assessee to be bonafide and sufficient. The appeals are to be considered on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons cited by the assessee to be bonafide and sufficient. The appeals are to be considered on merits.
The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the cost of acquisition of bonus shares allotted prior to 01.04.2001, which became the property of the assessee before that date, is to be decided based on the provisions of Section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act. This section mandates the use of the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.2001 as the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal found that the AO's approach of averaging the FMV of Rs. 1338.40 in the ratio of original shares to bonus shares was incorrect. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 55(2)(b)(i) provides a specific method for determining the cost of acquisition for such shares, and this statutory provision cannot be circumvented by averaging or by applying provisions intended for shares acquired on or after 01.04.2001. The Tribunal also noted that the insertion of Section 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) by the Finance Act, 1995, which deals with nil cost for certain bonus shares, is made subject to Section 55(2)(b)(i) in cases where the shares became the property before 01.04.2001. Therefore, the FMV as on 01.04.2001 should be applied to the entire holding of 1,80,13,600 shares. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the issue of nil cost for bonus shares acquired after 01.04.2001 or the alternate relief under Section 55(2)(ac) in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned from credit facilities extended to members, including nominal and associate members, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Regarding interest/dividend from investments, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the investments were made with co-operative societies, and if so, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) would be allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons cited by the assessee to be bonafide and sufficient. The appeals will now be considered on merits.
The Tribunal held that for the comparable 'Cybage Software Private Limited', the assessee's plea for exclusion based on high profit margin was rejected. The Tribunal noted that mere earning of high profits/losses cannot be a reason for exclusion, citing Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Private Limited. However, it directed the AO/TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list, without providing explicit reasoning for this specific direction in the excerpt. For 'Consilient Technologies Pvt. Ltd.' and 'Aptus Software Labs Pvt. Ltd.', the Tribunal found they had diversified activities and insufficient information in annual reports. These comparables were remanded to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration based on FAR analysis and verification of annual reports. For 'Batchmaster Software Pvt. Ltd.', the Tribunal relied on Prism Networks (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT and remanded it to the TPO to consider comparability analysis based on FAR. For 'Indianic Infotech Ltd.', the Tribunal found the DRP's rejection on new grounds without notice was erroneous and remanded it to the TPO for verification of annual reports and filters. Regarding corporate tax issues, including Section 10AA deduction and interest levies, the Tribunal directed the AO to carry out necessary verifications based on evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that M/s. Universal Print Systems Ltd. should be excluded from the list of comparable companies. The Tribunal noted that while the company had a Pre-Press BPO unit providing back office support and four major segments, including pre-press BPO where employee cost exceeded 25% of revenue, there were no segmental details available even after issuing a notice under Section 133(6). The Tribunal reiterated its earlier finding that if adjustments cannot be made reasonably or accurately, the company should be excluded. Despite issuing a notice under Section 133(6), no reply was received, yet the company was considered comparable. The Tribunal found that the required information was not made available, and TP adjustments could not be made reasonably or accurately. Therefore, the company is to be excluded, relying on the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case. Accordingly, Ground no. 3 raised by the assessee was allowed. Grounds 4 to 6 were held to be consequential and did not require adjudication, with a direction to the AO to grant credit of taxes paid after verification. Ground no. 1 was general, and Ground no. 2 and the additional ground were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee towards cross-charge of lease line/Global Area Network (GAN) charges do not fall within the ambit of 'Royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or Article 12 of the India-Germany DTAA. The Tribunal noted that the assessee and its Indian counterpart (MHIN) are end customers for the services provided by third-party service providers for internet connectivity and GAN. Crucially, neither the assessee nor MHIN possessed any right or control over the equipment used by the third-party service provider, and no right to use such third-party equipment was granted. Therefore, the payments could not constitute royalty. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in Asia Satellite Telecommunication Co. Ltd.'s case and Bharti Airtel vs. ITO (TDS), which supported the view that payments for use of equipment or network services, where there is no right to use the underlying equipment, do not amount to royalty. The Tribunal found no evidence to establish a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the assessee in India. Accordingly, the receipts were to be taxed as business income as per the laws of Germany. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the interconnect utility charges received by the assessee were not royalty. The assessee did not grant the right to use any equipment or process, and the Indian telecom operator did not have possession or control over the assessee's infrastructure.
The Tribunal held that the interconnect utility charges received by the non-resident assessee do not constitute royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. The assessee did not grant the 'use' or 'right to use' of any equipment or process, and the Indian telecom operator did not have possession or control over the assessee's infrastructure.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 51 days, considering the assessee's explanation of poor ITBA portal knowledge and non-resident status. The case was remitted to the AO to re-examine the issue of cash deposits during demonetization, as the original order was passed ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional notice and its validity is a condition precedent for reassessment. Issuing a notice to a deceased person renders the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not properly considered the evidence regarding employee cost reimbursements and the nature of other reimbursements. Therefore, both issues were remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal decided that the AO erred in not giving complete effect to the DRP's directions regarding comparable companies. The Tribunal also restored the issue of Section 80G deduction to the AO for fresh examination, noting that CSR expenses might be eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient reason. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that it is proper to examine whether the tax consultant, Mr. Nagesh Shastry, was solely responsible for the fraudulent claims and if the assessee's actions were bonafide. If the assessee's act was bonafide and the consultant was solely responsible, the penalty cannot be levied.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the interest income was earned from investments made with Cooperative Societies. If so, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act, following the Supreme Court's decision. If the interest is considered 'income from other sources', relief under section 57 of the Act should be granted.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. held that cooperative societies providing credit facilities to members are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal decided to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, directing him to follow the Supreme Court's dictum.
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., stating that income from credit facilities provided to members, including nominal/associate members (if permitted by the Co-operative Societies Act), is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). Section 80P(4) excludes only co-operative banks engaged in public banking. For interest income from investments, it directed the AO to verify if it was from investments with co-operative societies, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. If income is treated as 'income from other sources', relief u/s 57 would be applicable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted sufficient evidence, including ledger copies and confirmation letters, to substantiate the sundry creditors. The addition of the gift to the wife was also questioned for being treated as unexplained cash.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the AO for fresh consideration, following the Apex Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. regarding 'members'. For deduction under section 80P(2)(d), the AO was directed to verify if interest was earned from investments with Cooperative Societies. If so, deduction is allowable. Otherwise, if income is treated as 'Income from Other Sources', relief under section 57 is to be granted.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. case held that the interpretation of 'member' should consider the respective State Cooperative Societies Act. The Tribunal also referred to the Bangalore Bench's order in M/s. Ravindra Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd. case, remanding the issue for de novo consideration by the AO. For interest income from cooperative banks, the AO is directed to verify if the income is from investments in cooperative societies and if so, is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). If taxed as 'income from other sources', relief under section 57 is to be considered.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. case held that the interpretation of 'member' should consider the respective State Cooperative Societies Act. The Tribunal also referred to the Bangalore Bench's order in M/s. Ravindra Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd. case, remanding the issue for de novo consideration by the AO. For interest income from cooperative banks, the AO is directed to verify if the income is from investments in cooperative societies and if so, is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). If taxed as 'income from other sources', relief under section 57 is to be considered.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. case held that the interpretation of 'member' should consider the respective State Cooperative Societies Act. The Tribunal also referred to the Bangalore Bench's order in M/s. Ravindra Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd. case, remanding the issue for de novo consideration by the AO. For interest income from cooperative banks, the AO is directed to verify if the income is from investments in cooperative societies and if so, is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). If taxed as 'income from other sources', relief under section 57 is to be considered.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient reason. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that it is proper to examine whether the tax consultant, Mr. Nagesh Shastry, was solely responsible for the fraudulent claims and if the assessee's actions were bonafide. If the assessee's act was bonafide and the consultant was solely responsible, the penalty cannot be levied.