Loading ITAT cases…
108 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reasonable cause and that in such cases, substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. Citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal found that the delay was not deliberate and that refusing to condone it would defeat a meritorious case. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the interest income in question was not received from members for providing credit facilities, but from surplus investments. Citing Supreme Court judgments, it was held that such interest income falls under 'other income' and not 'profits and gains of business' attributable to the society's core activity. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if interest/dividend was received from investments with co-operative societies for potential deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal noted that only one ground of appeal, concerning the computation of the margin in the case of Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd., was argued. The assessee contended that bad debts written off, disclosed in Note 23 of the profit and loss account, were not considered as operating expenses by the TPO. The Tribunal perused the profit and loss account and confirmed that bad debts written off of Rs. 32,309,057 were debited under 'other expenses'. The DRP had also directed the TPO to compute margins as per annual accounts. The Tribunal found the TPO's failure to compute the margin as per the annual accounts, specifically for Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd., to be in violation of Section 144C(10) of the Act, which makes DRP directions binding. Therefore, the TPO was directed to compute bad debt expenses as an operating expenditure and then recalculate the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd. The adjustment to the ALP should only be retained to the extent necessitated by this recalculation. Grounds 7 and 8 were allowed. All other grounds (1-6 and 9-15) were dismissed as not argued.
The Tribunal held that mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalties for breach of civil obligations under the Income Tax Act. The finding of contravention is sufficient to attract penalties, irrespective of intention.
The assessee has opted for resolution under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, which requires the withdrawal of pending appeals. The AR submitted that the appeal pending before the Tribunal should be permitted to be withdrawn in compliance with the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 38 days was sufficiently explained by the chartered accountant's affidavit, which indicated a misapprehension rather than carelessness. The Supreme Court's decision in 'Collective Land Acquisition' was cited to support a liberal approach to condoning delays in the interest of substantial justice.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that interconnect charges are not royalty, relying on decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that identical issues in similar cases have been decided in favor of the assessee by coordinate benches.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing before the Assessing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel. Consequently, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed the return electronically on 27.07.2023 and e-verified it on 24.08.2023, beyond the 30-day period, leading to the denial of the section 115BAC benefit by the CPC. The CIT(A) had also not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him. However, considering the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay. Furthermore, referring to the CBDT notification mentioned by the assessee's counsel, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that there was a serious violation of natural justice by the TPO in determining the ALP of the international transaction. The Tribunal noted that the TPO's assertion that the assessee had not produced relevant documentation was contradicted by evidence showing the submission of audited accounts, Form 3CEB, tax audit report, segmental financial results, and agreements, including the TPSR, prior to the TPO's order. Furthermore, during the remand proceedings, the TPO did not adequately address the assessee's submissions or provide an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The Tribunal found that the TPO's remand report largely reiterated his earlier findings without proper verification of the assessee's documents or addressing the specific issues raised. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the entire issue back to the file of the TPO/AO. The TPO is directed to consider the TPSR and all other documents submitted by the assessee, examine them, and then issue notices if required. The assessee must be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the ALP should be determined after providing the assessee with a complete analysis of the method selection, PLI computation, comparability analysis, and the reasons for disagreement with the assessee's TPSR. The assessment order and the TPO's order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee adopted PCM, it failed to substantiate its claims regarding total construction cost, revenue recognition, and expenditure allocation. The audited accounts were found to be sketchy and lacked proper evidence. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issue after the assessee substantiates various project-specific details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the Ld.CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. While the assessee submitted a paper book, the Tribunal did not go into the merits of the issue due to the ex-parte nature of the lower authority's order.
The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing Form 10 was condoned by the CIT(Exemptions), the first ground of appeal regarding accumulation of income should be allowed. For the second ground concerning depreciation, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of whether claiming depreciation would amount to double deduction.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 7,75,00,000/- on account of store closure expenses was to be deleted. The Tribunal noted that the nature of the expenditure, supported by sample invoices and ledger accounts, clearly indicated that these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. Although complete details were voluminous, the assessee had provided sample invoices and additional details to the DRP. Crucially, none of the lower authorities had held that any of the expenditures for which details were produced were not incurred for business purposes, nor had they explicitly asked for complete details. Therefore, the disallowance was unwarranted. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow the set-off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 19,43,47,030/-, as found in accordance with the law. General grounds (1-3) and grounds related to interest under Section 234B and penalty under Section 270A were either not argued or dismissed as premature. The primary transfer pricing issues concerning the trading segment, intra-group services, and interest on delayed receivables were not explicitly decided in the provided excerpt, but the appeal was partly allowed based on the store closure expenses and brought forward losses.
The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the cash deposit as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed the assessee's appeal, noting that documents filed were in vernacular and without translation, and no application was made under Rule 46A for admitting additional evidence. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision that sufficient opportunities were granted was incorrect, considering the assessment proceedings occurred during the Covid-19 period. Therefore, the matters were restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration.
The assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the present appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object to this withdrawal. The Tribunal perused the record and observed that Form 2 contained details of the disputed tax and the settled amount.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision that sufficient opportunities were granted was incorrect, considering the assessment proceedings occurred during the Covid-19 period. Therefore, the matters were restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was legally tenable due to a lack of proper inquiry by the AO regarding a document found during the search. The appeal was dismissed without commenting on the merits of the additions.
The Tribunal upheld the view that overdue receivables beyond the credit period constitute a separate international transaction requiring benchmarking. However, it noted a computational error in the interest calculation by the TPO, which extended beyond the financial year.
The Tribunal held that the AO had consciously decided not to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) as no addition was made to the returned income and penalty u/s 271F was initiated. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not mandatory. Therefore, the action of the PCIT under section 263 was not justifiable.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and observed that the matter requires fresh consideration by the AO. The AO is directed to verify the availability of TDS credit, examine the TDS certificate from the employer, and consider the updated Form 26AS.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided overwhelming documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the expenditure, including PAN, GST registration, agreement, invoices, and bank statements. The non-response of the vendor to the Section 133(6) notice, despite the assessee furnishing sufficient proof, could not lead to a disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted on an honest and bona fide belief that the transaction was not covered by Section 269SS, and this constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the claim of ₹5,41,28,664/- on account of Ind-AS adjustment for preference shares is a legitimate claim, as the notional interest income is not taxable under the Income Tax Act. The ITAT's prior binding directions to examine the issue afresh and allow the claim superseded the procedural requirement of filing a revised return. The assessee brought the claim to the notice of the authorities during assessment proceedings through a revised computation, which was deemed sufficient. The legal precedents, including Goetze (India) Ltd., support the consideration of such claims at the appellate stage. However, the Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not verified the genuineness of the claim and had rejected it on technical grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the claim and allow it after verification if found genuine. The ground of appeal is allowed subject to this direction. The stay petition was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued hearing notices to an incorrect email address, not provided by the assessee in its appeal form. Consequently, the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A could not be made as the assessee's bank statement showed the cash withdrawals prior to the deposit, and the AO had not produced evidence to disregard the explanation. The Tribunal found the cash deposit to be duly explained.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not substantiate the entire opening cash balance and deposits from relatives and friends. However, considering the assessee's status and past practices, a portion of the opening balance was accepted. The addition on account of turnover was upheld.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2017, is applicable prospectively from April 1, 2017. Since the agreement for the purchase of the flat was entered into prior to this date, the section was not applicable, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to bring on record solid evidence to justify the addition and did not follow the prescribed procedures under Section 56(2)(x) and Rule 11UA. The CIT(A) had correctly allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding the unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs, accepting Rs. 4 lakhs as opening balance. The addition of profit on other credits was upheld, and the penalty appeal was remitted back to the AO for consequential effect.
The Learned A.R. for the assessee did not press the grounds of appeal during the hearing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserves another opportunity to substantiate its claim that the cash deposit was received from its members. Directions were given to the assessee to submit member details and KYC information, and to produce the cash book to demonstrate the opening balance.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding netting of interest on receivables and payables, the Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention and relied on the Bombay Tribunal's decision in Jewellmark India (P.) Ltd. The matter was restored to the AO to examine the issue holistically, apply the same criteria for credit period without interest to payables as to receivables, net off the interest, and make adjustments for the resultant amount. The AO was directed to examine and verify facts and adjudicate accordingly. 2. Concerning the benchmarking of interest on overdue receivables using the same comparables as the main transaction, the Tribunal noted the Delhi Tribunal's decisions in M/s Headstrong Services India (P.) Ltd., Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd., and Ameriprise India (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal set aside this issue to the TPO for fresh adjudication, applying the principles established in the cited cases. It was also directed that any interest calculated should be limited up to the end of the financial year. The ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based on a mere 'change of opinion' without any new tangible material is illegal and without jurisdiction. The AO cannot review his own order or rectify mistakes based on the same material. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were annulled.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the explanation provided by the assessee to be bonafide and a sufficient reason. The Tribunal noted that the author of the trust is elderly and has limited access to communication, and the trust lacks employees for administrative work. While condoning the delay, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(Exemptions).
The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the file of the AO, noting that the quantum appeal had been set aside by the CIT(A). The AO was permitted to reinitiate penalty proceedings if warranted after reframing the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was in clear violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules as additional evidence was admitted without giving the AO an opportunity. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh examination, directing the assessee to submit details within 90 days.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition related to M/s. SML Electricals Pvt. Ltd. but upheld other additions made by the AO. The Tribunal noted a mismatch in turnover reported and contract receipts, lack of response from M/s. SML Electricals Pvt. Ltd. to AO's notice, and the assessee's inability to provide documentary evidence for other additions.
The Tribunal noted that the issue depends on how the evidence is viewed and whether the assessee can establish that the cash deposit is from business sales, which are already offered for taxation. The AO had accepted the book results of the Bar & Restaurant business.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition related to M/s. SML Electricals Pvt. Ltd. but upheld other additions made by the AO. The Tribunal noted a mismatch in turnover reported and contract receipts, lack of response from M/s. SML Electricals Pvt. Ltd. to AO's notice, and the assessee's inability to provide documentary evidence for other additions.
The Tribunal held that voluntary transfer pricing adjustments or ALP adjustments made pursuant to an APA, resulting in increased profits, are eligible for deduction under Section 10AA. The proviso to Section 92C(4) does not bar such a claim as it applies only to adjustments made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
The Tribunal held that while the assessee may not have been authorized to receive SBNs post-demonetization, the source of the cash deposit was accounted sales made by the assessee, which were not disputed by the AO or CIT(A). The Tribunal relied on a Supreme Court decision stating that no addition can be made if sales are shown and undisputed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the profit estimation to 6.05%, finding the AO's 10% estimation arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's past profit declarations and industry practices supporting lower margins.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the estimated business income, finding the AO's estimation rate to be without proper reasoning. The Tribunal also deleted the addition on unexplained investment in land, relying on CBDT circulars regarding the permissible limits of jewellery held by family members.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) considered relevant CBDT circulars for verifying demonetized cash deposits and did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and in light of relevant CBDT instructions.
The Tribunal held that notional costs incurred by the AE, such as ESOP or assets provided free of cost, cannot be treated as part of the assessee's operating expenses for calculating the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) under the TNMM method. The calculation should be based on costs incurred by the assessee itself.
The assessee contended that the ALP determined in MAP proceedings between Indian and US competent authorities for US-based AEs should also be applied to non-US based AEs. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled disputes for both segments under the MAP and decided to refer the matter back to the TPO for a fresh TP study in light of adjustments accepted with US-based entities.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC passed the order after a significant delay of over 4 years without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is a violation of natural justice principles. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding the notional interest on overdue receivables, the Tribunal noted an identical issue decided by the ITAT Bangalore Bench in ON Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited vs. DCIT. Following that precedent, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the TPO for fresh adjudication. The TPO was directed to examine the factual aspect, including the debtors' holding period of comparables versus the assessee's. If the comparable holding period is higher, no TP adjustment is required. The interest, if any, should be limited to the end of the financial year. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 2. Concerning the disallowance of CSR expenses under Section 80G, the Tribunal disagreed with the AO and DRP. It held that expenditure under Sections 30 to 36 are computed under 'Income from Business and Profession', while Section 80G deductions are for 'Total Taxable Income'. Even if CSR payments form part of CSR, they can still be eligible for deduction under Section 80G if they meet the conditions, provided they are not expressly excluded. Denying this benefit would lead to double disallowance. The Tribunal noted that the authorities below had not verified the nature of payments qualifying for exemption under Section 80G and the quantum of eligibility. Therefore, the finding of the DRP was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition, subject to compliance with Section 80G. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 3. Regarding the short benefit of TDS, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the benefit of TDS in toto after necessary verification as per law, as the learned DR did not object. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.