Loading ITAT cases…
124 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. held that income from credit facilities to members, including nominal members, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Therefore, the issue of deduction under Section 80P was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is a statutory deduction and not an expenditure subject to TDS under Section 40(a)(i). It also held that equipment provided for temporary testing purposes, which is either returned or destroyed, does not constitute a benefit in the nature of income under Section 28(iv), especially when transfer pricing is resolved via MAP.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the lower authorities is justified based on the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. However, for verification of challans, the matter was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AMP TP adjustment made by the TPO was unsustainable. It respectfully followed the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal noted that the sine qua non for a transfer pricing exercise is the existence of an international transaction with a certain disclosed price, and in the absence of such a transaction involving AMP spend with an ascertainable price, Chapter X of the Income Tax Act is not applicable. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that no material was brought on record by the TPO to establish an arrangement or understanding with the AE for incurring AMP expenses for the AE's benefit. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that if the revenue accepts entity-level margins under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), it would be inappropriate to treat a particular expenditure like AMP as a separate international transaction, as it is factored into the net profit. The Tribunal observed that the TPO had accepted the entity-level margins earned by the assessee but proceeded to make a separate TP adjustment for AMP expenses, which is inconsistent with the established jurisprudence. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the AMP TP adjustment. The Tribunal also noted that the decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, which followed the Delhi High Court judgments, had not been set aside or stayed, and there were no distinguishing features in the facts of the current assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s finding.
The Tribunal held that the cash transaction was part of a bonafide transaction, and the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS due to the timing of the transaction relative to statutory amendments.
The Tribunal held that the action of the AO/TPO in not considering the modified return and the bilateral APA was contrary to the agreement and unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the AO/TPO were bound to follow the APA. Citing a precedent from the Hyderabad Tribunal, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to give effect to the APA terms.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay, citing medical prescriptions and the principle of advancing substantial justice. The Tribunal further noted that the revenue had not filed a counter-affidavit opposing the delay condonation.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circulars, appeals with a tax effect less than Rs.60 lakhs are not maintainable before the ITAT. Since the tax effect in this case was below the limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT-TP was justified in revising the order regarding the allocation of depreciation and amortization expenses due to lack of verification by the TPO. However, the Tribunal found no merit in revising the order concerning delivery and warranty expenses, as the TPO had already made a detailed inquiry and accepted the assessee's position.
The Tribunal held that the CIT-TP was justified in revising the order regarding the allocation of depreciation and amortization expenses due to lack of verification by the TPO. However, the Tribunal found no merit in revising the order concerning delivery and warranty expenses, as the TPO had already made a detailed inquiry and accepted the assessee's position.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's letter and their decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on funds provided by the government for specific projects needs to be verified to determine if it was remitted back to the government or adjusted against future grants. If so, it would not be considered income of the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits. The appeal was actually filed within the prescribed time limit, making the dismissal improper.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 54 can be allowed for investment in construction even if the construction is not fully complete, provided the capital gains have been utilized for the purpose. The Karnataka High Court's decision in Sambandam Uday Kumar was followed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay as there was sufficient cause for the belated filing. Considering the lack of notice and to provide an opportunity to the assessee, the matter was remitted to the First Appellate Authority.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on funds provided by the government for specific projects needs to be verified to determine if it was remitted back to the government or adjusted against future grants. If so, it would not be considered income of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circulars, appeals with a tax effect less than Rs.60 lakhs are not maintainable. Since the tax effect in this appeal was less than Rs.60 lakhs, it was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that when substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations, substantial justice should be preferred. The expression 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed. Given the specific facts of the case and the submission that the addition was based on incorrect reporting by the auditor, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and consider the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect. It noted that the advances were made in earlier years from sufficient interest-free funds and the outstanding balance had decreased over time. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions supporting the assessee's contention.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case and in the case of GIPL (payer), held that the payments made by GIPL and other Indian customers to GIL were not in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services. Therefore, these payments could not be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee in India.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction of the reversed provision is allowable. This is because the original provision was offered to tax in the year of creation (AY 2015-16), and the AO's own verification for AY 2018-19 confirmed this fact.
The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and in the interest of justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a de novo consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details.
The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority had not considered the assessee's submissions and that the bank had issued a certificate regarding the incorrect linking of the assessee's PAN to the firm's account. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is barred from making an assessment order without giving effect to the provisions of Section 10, unless the approval granted has been cancelled. Since the approval for the assessee trust was restored, the assessment order denying exemption had to be vacated. The income reported by the assessee trust should be accepted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is barred from making an assessment order without giving effect to the provisions of Section 10, unless the approval granted has been cancelled. Since the approval for the assessee trust was restored, the assessment order denying exemption had to be vacated. The income reported by the assessee trust should be accepted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is barred from making an assessment order without giving effect to the provisions of Section 10, unless the approval granted has been cancelled. Since the approval for the assessee trust was restored, the assessment order denying exemption had to be vacated. The income reported by the assessee trust should be accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions based on Form 26AS data and that the assessee did not respond to notices. The Tribunal also observed that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not appreciate the documents furnished by the assessee. Considering the interest of justice, the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not have adequate opportunity before the CIT(A) due to the short span between notices and the delay in issuing them. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration, with a direction to grant proper opportunity to the assessee.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding a reasonable cause and no malafide intention on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. for condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that since the AO accepted the gross receipts, including the SBNs, and allowed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), making an addition under Section 68 for the same amount was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the source of the deposit was recorded in the assessee's books of account.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below accepted the source of income as agriculture but arbitrarily reduced the net agricultural income by 50% without any basis or adverse material. Agricultural income is exempt under Section 10(1) and cannot be treated as 'income from other sources' without specific evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of advancing substantial justice. It was found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte without proper opportunity, and the merits were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 80P because the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1), as per the provisions of section 80AC. This decision followed the Kerala High Court's ruling in Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted the required documents and that the subsequent notices from the CIT(E) were not proper. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to appear before the CIT(E) with all documents.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of Section 14A disallowance was settled by the jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case, which held that expenditure must be 'incurred' to attract Section 14A. The judgment also discussed the applicability of Section 115JB concerning banking companies and the Companies Act.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to represent their case, considering the interest of justice and equity.
The Tribunal allowed the ground regarding Section 14A by following its own previous orders and the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. Consequently, the ground related to Section 115JB became infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of Section 115JB applicability to banking companies had been decided in favour of the assessee by coordinate benches, including in the assessee's own case, and that the Delhi High Court had upheld a similar decision. Therefore, the revenue's ground on this issue was allowed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligent attitude and failure to comply with procedural requirements, including the absence of a delay condonation application and non-appearance. The Assessment Order was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, and the CIT(A) had also passed an ex-parte order.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of surplus capital by partners from the firm before its conversion into a company did not constitute a violation of Section 47(xiii) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made under the head of long-term capital gains was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee was negligent, the revenue authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction by making an arbitrary assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case before the AO.
The Tribunal held that payments for sales and marketing services to foreign subsidiaries do not fall under the ambit of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as defined under the Act or DTAA. The Tribunal also upheld the allowability of ESOP expenses as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in not properly considering the assessee's explanation that the SBNs were recoveries of loan amounts from members. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not conduct sufficient inquiry and failed to consider CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 54, the claim could be considered under section 54F. However, due to the lack of complete documentary evidence and the rejection of the valuation report by revenue authorities without pointing out defects, the matter was set aside to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on delayed payment of customs duty is compensatory in nature, not penal. Therefore, it is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), noting that there was sufficient cause for the belated filing. The Tribunal found that the assessees were not adequately notified about the delay and lack of condonation applications by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that payments for sales and marketing services to foreign subsidiaries do not fall under the ambit of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as defined under the Act or DTAA. The Tribunal also upheld the allowability of ESOP expenses as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that payments for sales and marketing services to foreign subsidiaries do not fall under the ambit of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as defined under the Act or DTAA. The Tribunal also upheld the allowability of ESOP expenses as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as notices were sent to the wrong email ID. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the issue required revisiting at the TPO level. The TPO was directed to verify whether the trade receivables were outstanding for more than 90 days. If they were, only such outstanding receivables would be subject to adjustment for interest up to the end of the financial year. The TPO was further directed to benchmark these transactions at LIBOR + 200 basis points, as held by the ITAT in the case of Hewlett Packard India Software Operations Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal cited the Hewlett Packard case, which emphasized applying commercial principles to international transactions involving receivables in foreign currency and using LIBOR + 2% as an appropriate interest rate, referencing the Bombay High Court decision in CIT v. Aurionpro Solutions Ltd. Consequently, the issue was set aside to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication. No specific issue was left undecided, but the matter was remanded for factual verification and re-adjudication.