Loading ITAT cases…
229 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a contractor or immediate employer, did not have the primary liability to collect and remit employee contributions to the provident fund and ESI. Therefore, the provisions of sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) were not applicable to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed grounds 4 and 5, directing the exclusion of certain comparables. For comparables Mindtree Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., and Infosys Ltd., the Tribunal followed its own order for the immediately preceding assessment year, where these companies were excluded for failing the upper turnover filter. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer/TPO was directed to exclude these comparables for the current year. Regarding E-Infochips Ltd., the Tribunal noted that this company is into diversified activities under the SWD service segment and cannot be considered a captive service provider. Citing its own decision in Micro Focus Software India (P.) Ltd., which in turn relied on Aspect Technology Center (I.) Pvt. Ltd. and other cases, the Tribunal held that E-Infochips Ltd. was correctly excluded by the DRP due to lack of segmental information, presence of significant inventory, and failure to meet the software service income filter. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to exclude E-Infochips Ltd. from the final list of comparables. Consequently, grounds 4 and 5 raised by the assessee were allowed. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's view that demonetized currency has zero value while simultaneously making an addition based on its value under Section 68 was inconsistent. The assessee had provided details of members and demonstrated that the deposits were made in the normal course of business and within the permitted period. The Tribunal found that the assessee satisfied the identity and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a gas agency, was authorized to collect specified bank notes up to a certain date. The Tribunal also noted that the cash deposits were reflected in the firm's books and their source was explained. Therefore, the addition based on the assumption of unexplained cash credit was deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects, when read in the proper perspective, were for charitable purposes within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee operated on principles of mutuality, with benefits spread among its members, which did not preclude approval under section 12AB.
The Tribunal noted that the authorities below did not verify the documents submitted by the assessee to explain the cash deposits and the CIT(A) also did not consider the application for additional evidences. The Tribunal found the submission and evidence relied upon by the assessee to be clinching.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the demise of the assessee's consultant as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the cash deposits in light of CBDT circulars and provide the assessee with an opportunity for a physical hearing.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities, including the AO and CIT(A), did not properly examine the third-party creditors despite the assessee providing all necessary documents. The Tribunal noted that the AO had previously allowed interest payments to these same creditors, implying their genuineness. Therefore, restricting the addition to 75% by the CIT(A) was considered without basis.
The Tribunal noted that the delay was due to the ill health of the Principal Officer, which was a sufficient cause. The medical certificate was produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days, finding it not inordinate.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not outrightly rejected the appeal and had provided an opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal found no reason for the appeal as the issue was already restored to the AO for consideration.
The Tribunal addressed the issues for both assessment years. Regarding the recharacterization of services and inclusion of ESOP/reimbursement costs, the Tribunal remitted these issues back to the Assessing Officer (AO)/TPO with similar directions as given for AY 2017-18. For the imputation of interest on outstanding receivables, the Tribunal held that interest should be adopted at LIBOR + 300 basis points, as against the SBI SLR rates. The AO/TPO was directed to consider outstanding receivables received beyond March 31st for the financial year under consideration. The Tribunal noted that not all outstanding receivables and payables are subsumed in working capital adjustments. The issue of limitation was not explicitly decided in the provided excerpt, but the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that substantive issues were addressed. The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of considering agreed payment periods and the impact of receivables on working capital, referencing decisions from the Delhi Tribunal and Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: On the issue of limitation, the judgment does not explicitly state a finding. However, the appeals were considered on merits, implying the limitation issue was either not pressed or not accepted. Regarding the recharacterization of services and inclusion of costs in the cost base, the Tribunal remitted these issues back to the Assessing Officer (AO)/TPO for re-adjudication with similar directions as given for AY 2017-18. For the imputation of interest on outstanding receivables, the Tribunal held that an interest rate of LIBOR + 300 basis points should be adopted for outstanding receivables received beyond March 31st of the financial year, as against the SBI SLR rates or SBI PLR rates. This decision was based on various Tribunal decisions and aimed to meet the ends of justice. The DRP's direction to consider SBI short-term deposit rate was not followed. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to consider outstanding receivables received beyond March 31st for the financial year under consideration. The grounds related to this issue were partly allowed.
The Tribunal referred to a CBDT circular and a previous order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance by following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The issue of penalty for Banking Regulation Act violation was remitted to the AO. The revenue's appeal regarding Section 36(1)(viii) was dismissed, following a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal held that the additional income surrendered by the assessee, arising from excess stock found during search, should be treated as business income. It was reasoned that the assessee had explained the source of this stock as business income, and the revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal held that the additional income surrendered by the assessee, arising from excess stock found during search, should be treated as business income. It was reasoned that the assessee had explained the source of this stock as business income, and the revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal held that the additional income surrendered by the assessee, arising from excess stock found during search, should be treated as business income. It was reasoned that the assessee had explained the source of this stock as business income, and the revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal held that the additional income surrendered by the assessee, arising from excess stock found during search, should be treated as business income. It was reasoned that the assessee had explained the source of this stock as business income, and the revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal held that the additional income surrendered by the assessee, arising from excess stock found during search, should be treated as business income. It was reasoned that the assessee had explained the source of this stock as business income, and the revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.
The tribunal noted that although there was a delay, it was condoned by the CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024. The tribunal remitted the issue to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration in light of the circular.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds for adjudication, finding that all facts were on record and the revenue's action was bonafide. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the issue should be remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision as the Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition without a valid remand report.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice must be prioritized over technicalities. It found that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee was crucial and should have been considered. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity to present its case and evidence.
The Tribunal found that the income declared by the assessee and the claimed deduction under Section 80P were not adjudicated by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the order of the NFAC, which rejected the appeal ex-parte by not condoning the delay, was set aside.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for the delay to be reasonable and bonafide. Consequently, the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC was condoned. The Tribunal also decided to remit the issue regarding the addition made by the AO back to the NFAC for fresh consideration.
The tribunal noted that although there was a delay, it was condoned by the CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024. The tribunal remitted the issue to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration in light of the circular.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for filing Form 10AB till 30.06.2024. Based on this circular and a previous order on identical facts, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal relied on the Apex Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. which held that co-operative societies providing credit facilities to members are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal also noted that Section 80P(4) excludes only cooperative banks engaged in public banking. The issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was remitted to the AO for de novo consideration. For deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), the AO was directed to verify if interest was earned from investments with cooperative societies.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction due to nominal members was incorrect as the number of members was within the prescribed limit, and the AO had no jurisdiction to question violations of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The issue of interest income from cooperative banks was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration. The disallowance of provision for interest expenses was found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance by following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The issue of penalty for Banking Regulation Act violation was remitted to the AO. The revenue's appeal regarding Section 36(1)(viii) was dismissed, following a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of the year of taxability of the investment in watches was disputed and had been remitted to the CIT(A) in a previous appeal. In the current appeal, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the issue and had deleted the addition summarily. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for filing Form 10AB to 30.06.2024. The Tribunal relied on a previous order in a similar case where the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had extended the due date for filing Form 10AB to 30.06.2024 and allowed applications rejected solely for being filed after the due date. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the employer is obligated to deduct employee's contribution before paying wages and deposit it within 15 days of the close of the month, as per Section 38 of the EPF Act. The argument that the due date shifts if wages are paid later was rejected, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services.
The Tribunal held that the employer is obligated to deduct employee's contribution before paying wages and deposit it within 15 days of the close of the month, as per Section 38 of the EPF Act. The argument that the due date shifts if wages are paid later was rejected, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by relying on the principle of substantial justice and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issues on merits.
The Tribunal held that an assessee has a right to be heard, and non-appearance due to reasonable cause should not prevent the CIT(A) from dealing with the issues on merits. The appeals were remanded for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that an assessee has a right to be heard, and non-appearance due to reasonable cause should not prevent the CIT(A) from dealing with the issues on merits. The appeals were remanded for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not verify the cash deposits based on CBDT circulars. The Tribunal opined that evidence is required to be verified in light of the CBDT circulars and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the details filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not well-versed with the ITBA portal and requested another opportunity to present documents. The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal and remit the issue back to the NFAC to consider the case afresh with the provided documents.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., held that any delay in depositing employee contributions to the respective funds by an employer leads to disallowance under section 36(1)(va). The Tribunal found that the assessee's argument regarding delayed salary payments deferring the deposit liability was not in consonance with Section 38 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, stating that dealing with SBN notes prior to the appointed date (31.12.2016) is not prohibited. The Tribunal found that SBNs can be measured in monetary terms, and the contention of treating the receipt of SBNs from cash sales as illegal, invoking section 69A, is not valid.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had issued several notices but the assessee did not respond, leading to an ex-parte order. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
Both parties conceded that the issue should be remitted to the AO as the orders passed by the lower authorities were ex-parte.
The Tribunal referred to a similar issue previously decided where the delay in filing applications for renewal under section 80G was condoned by the CBDT. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The assessee's appeal in ITA No.865/Bang/2024 concerning the same assessment year had already been heard by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the current appeal was a duplicate submission.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be good and sufficient. Since the NFAC order was passed ex-parte, the entire issue was remitted back to the NFAC for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)/NFAC order were passed without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the grounds of non-production of evidence. The assessee's representative requested an adjournment to submit necessary documents. The Tribunal rejected the adjournment and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted to the NFAC for reconsideration. The NFAC was directed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that dealing with SBN notes prior to the appointed date was not prohibited, and the source of the deposit needed to be explained. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision regarding the validity of SBN notes and their measurability in monetary terms, finding that treating receipts as illegal was not valid. The Tribunal remitted the issue concerning the addition to the AO for necessary inquiry under Section 69A, not 68. For the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and previous Tribunal decisions.