Loading ITAT cases…
189 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of deemed rent. It noted that the property was purchased on March 15, 2019, and therefore, deemed rent could at most be worked out for 15 days. The authorities below had erred in calculating it for the entire year. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. Regarding the Section 54 exemption, the Tribunal acknowledged that investment in land alone is not eligible unless a residential house is constructed thereon, and there was no construction activity. However, it found merit in the assessee's alternate argument regarding the flat purchased for Rs. 24,10,000/-. Since the CIT(A) admitted the purchase of this residential flat, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the benefit of deduction under Section 54 for this flat. Other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) were the first assessment proceedings for the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to make fresh claims, including the refund of excess TDS credit, as the proceedings were de-novo.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for both assessment years.
The Tribunal held that since the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were the first assessment proceedings for the assessee, they were de-novo. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to make fresh claims, including the refund of excess TDS credit.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., found sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for both assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed belatedly and condoned the delay. The assessee's AR claimed that notices might have gone to the spam folder and requested a chance to present their case. Considering the rival submissions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the definition of 'member' under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act includes nominal/associate members. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's investments were made to meet statutory requirements.
The Tribunal noted that transfer pricing issues were withdrawn due to the APA. For the corporate tax issues, the deduction under Section 80G was remanded to the AO for verification. The computation error was directed to be rectified by the AO. Penalty proceedings were deemed consequential and not requiring adjudication. Interest levy was directed to be computed as per law.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not invoke Section 263 to revise an order passed under Section 147 based on an issue not covered by the reasons recorded for reopening. The notice issued under Section 263 was deemed void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging sufficient cause due to the email communication issue. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT-A for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal has issued a corrigendum to correct a minor typographical error in a previous order regarding the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
The Tribunal observed that there were sufficient reasons for the delay, citing the merger of the company and the consequent inability to access the e-portal. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was condoned. The issues were remitted back to the FAA for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that transfer pricing issues were withdrawn due to the APA. For the corporate tax issues, the deduction under Section 80G was remanded to the AO for verification. The computation error was directed to be rectified by the AO. Penalty proceedings were deemed consequential and not requiring adjudication. Interest levy was directed to be computed as per law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient time for the assessee to respond to the notices, especially after a significant delay in issuing the first notice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act defines 'members' to include nominal and associate members. The Tribunal also noted that the interest earned on investments made for statutory purposes is distinguishable from the facts in the cited cases.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income earned from providing credit facilities to its members. The ratio of Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. was distinguished as not applicable to the assessee's specific nature and operations.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 118 days in filing the appeal, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be reasonable and not deliberate. Consequently, the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the AO made the addition based on incorrect information as the sale deed produced by the assessee clearly showed the purchase price was Rs. 31 Lakhs and the source of funds was a bank loan. The Tribunal also noted that the lower appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of advance tax when the addition itself was disputed.
The Tribunal observed that there were sufficient reasons for the delay, citing the merger of the company and the consequent inability to access the e-portal. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was condoned. The issues were remitted back to the FAA for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not verified the issues raised in the additional grounds by the assessee. Considering that these issues could affect search proceedings for multiple years, the Tribunal decided to remit the additional grounds to the CIT(A) for analysis and verification.
The tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) issued six notices, none of which were complied with by the assessee, leading to an ex-parte dismissal of the appeal. The assessee argued that notices from the FAA were not served, possibly landing in spam. The tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without a decision on the merits. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A) due to the interest of justice and fair play.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders and notices were served on the wrong email IDs, leading to the assessee's unawareness and non-appearance. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders and notices were served on the wrong email IDs, leading to the assessee's unawareness and non-appearance. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities did not examine the cash deposits in light of CBDT instructions for demonetisation period. Following a coordinate bench's order, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for de novo verification.
The Tribunal noted that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) on interest income from investments was the key issue. The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench's decision on a similar matter and the submissions regarding the applicability of Circular No. 18/2015.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were compensatory in nature for non-compliance with statutory timelines, not for committing an offense prohibited by law. Therefore, they are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and serves its members. It does not engage in banking activities like accepting public deposits or offering cheque facilities. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to decide the deduction claim afresh.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not examined the issue in light of CBDT instructions regarding demonetized cash. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned by excluding the COVID-19 period, as per the Supreme Court's decision. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Relying on a previous identical case for the assessee (AY 2010-11), the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court has held that societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act are eligible for deduction under Section 80P. Given this, and that the CIT(Appeals) decided the issue ex-parte, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the cash seized from the partners' premises belonged to the partnership firm, as evidenced by the firm's cash book and an affidavit from the partners. The reasoning of the lower authorities that the cash could not be adjusted against the firm's liability because it was seized from the partners' premises was based on surmise and conjecture.
The Tribunal observed that the AO did not examine the issues in hand as per the CBDT instructions, which are binding. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessee failed to explain the cash deposits made during demonetization. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed under Section 144, and the assessee's primary contention was that notices were served via email, which they do not frequently use, leading to unawareness.
The Tribunal held that the reduction of the provision from trade receivables in the balance sheet constitutes an actual write-off, not merely a provision for doubtful debts. Therefore, it is not required to be added back to book profit under section 115JB. The PCIT's direction to reassess was considered bad in law.
The Tribunal confirmed 50% of the disallowance on motor car and motor bike expenses, while the remaining 50% was given as relief, considering the assessee's suo motu disallowance. Rent and salary expenses were allowed in full. Washing charges and bonus payments saw a 50% disallowance restriction. Other grounds were considered and addressed based on the evidence provided and the arguments made.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that the return was filed as all tax liabilities were deducted at source (TDS) and reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee claimed a bona fide belief that no penalty was leviable under section 270A due to this belief and the fact that the income was subject to TDS.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A) due to the interest of justice and fair play.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders and notices were served on the wrong email IDs, leading to the assessee's unawareness and non-appearance. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and the assessment order were passed ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the AO for fresh consideration. However, due to the assessee's failure to appear, a cost of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not examine the issue in light of CBDT instructions regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh examination. The AO is directed to verify the details and evidence provided by the assessee in light of applicable CBDT instructions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted in good faith and was misled into depositing taxes not in consonance with his income. No tax can be collected without legal authority.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether companies with a turnover exceeding ₹200 crores should be excluded as comparables was an obiter dictum in the Autodesk India Private Limited case, and the Bombay High Court in Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd. (supra) did not lay down a strict rule. The Tribunal noted that while turnover is a factor, it's not the sole determinant. Regarding functional dissimilarity, the Tribunal acknowledged the need for adjustments for working capital, risk, and R&D. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to furnish necessary details for working capital adjustments before the DRP. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO/TPO for necessary verification and fresh adjudication, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. On the issue of royalty expenses, the Tribunal noted that the revenue itself had treated such expenses as revenue in nature for the assessee in earlier assessment years (2012-13 and 2015-16). Given no contrary evidence was presented by the revenue, the Tribunal set aside the order of the DRP/AO and directed to allow the deduction treating royalty expenses as revenue in nature. The grounds related to interest under Section 244A and 234D were allowed by directing the AO to recalculate the interest as per law, as both parties agreed. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI made under Section 36(1)(va) is valid if deposited after the due date as per the PF & ESI Act, even if deposited before the return filing due date. The assessee's argument regarding the interpretation of the due date under the EPF scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 143(2) via email on September 24, 2015, was invalid because the rules prescribing email as a mode of service (Rule 127) were notified only on December 2, 2015. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were deemed bad in law and void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee and the corresponding fees received cannot be considered as FTS/FIS. The receipts are to be treated as software licensing and help desk support services provided to its customers. The Tribunal reasoned that the 'make available' clause in Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA was crucial. The services provided, such as diagnostic of problems, efforts to resolve errors, and recommendations for process changes, do not constitute making technical knowledge, skills, or know-how available to the customer. The Tribunal distinguished the case of Volvo Information Technology AB, noting that the present case primarily involves the sale of software and ancillary helpdesk services, unlike the pure services in Volvo, and that the India-USA DTAA has a 'make available' clause, unlike the India-Sweden DTAA applicable in Volvo. The Tribunal allowed grounds 3 to 6, and grounds 7 to 9 were rendered infructuous. Ground 10 regarding a refund statement was to be verified by the AO. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed after a delay of 256 days, but condoned the delay considering the assessee's reasonable cause. The Tribunal partly accepted the assessee's prayer, considering cash withdrawn from FY 2014-15 to 07.09.2016 as re-deposited, granting relief of Rs. 7,25,000.
The Tribunal held that SBNs deposited during the demonetization period cannot be treated as unexplained money solely because they were accepted after the announcement. However, the assessee still has the obligation to explain the source of the money, which was not verified by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that diaries containing entries from 1990-1994 could not be used as a basis to compute undisclosed income for a later period, as no nexus was established with cash found during the search. The Tribunal also directed the AO to await the outcome of DRI proceedings and a related writ petition.