Loading ITAT cases…
167 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal condoned a 7-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(E)'s order was passed without adhering to principles of natural justice as reasons were not communicated to the assessee. The Tribunal found the assessee's genuineness was not in doubt given its 12A registration and submitted documents.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the expenses was not in dispute, a substantial period of time had elapsed, and the issue was tax neutral as it only shifted the timing of the deduction. Therefore, the assessee's claim was accepted.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue to the AO for a de novo assessment after hearing the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious completion of the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the executive gain sharing payment was a contingent liability and not deductible. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to expense reallocation, finding it illogical in a cost-plus model where costs and revenues move together.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and considered relevant judgments, making a plausible and correct assessment. The interest income earned from statutory deposits, mandated by the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, is business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the learned TPO and DRP were not justified in rejecting the internal TNMM and the segmental results furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that segmental computation of margins, with income allocated on an actual basis using invoice-level data and common expenses allocated on a net income basis, was reliable and left no scope for arbitrariness. The Tribunal also found the allocation of rent and advertising/business promotion expenses exclusively to the non-AE segment logical and consistent with the assessee's business model, especially since the TPO/DRP did not point out any factual error. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even with a conservative assumption against the assessee regarding these expenses, the AE segment margin remained higher than the non-AE segment margin, strongly supporting the claim that international transactions were at arm's length. The Tribunal emphasized that rejection based on procedural objections like non-maintenance of separately audited segmental accounts was not warranted, as the law does not mandate separate audited segmental accounts for transfer pricing purposes, provided the data is reasonable, consistent, and reconcilable with audited accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the internal comparables adopted by the assessee were reliable and demonstrated that the margin from AE transactions was higher than from non-AE transactions, thus establishing that the international transactions were at arm's length. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to accept the internal TNMM adopted by the assessee and delete the transfer pricing adjustment. The grounds related to the main issue were allowed. Other grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous because they were alternative claims to the main issue which had been allowed.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee demonstrates that deposits in Scheduled/Commercial Banks were made pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, then such interest income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as business income. The matter was remitted to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the administrative changes and management transitions within the co-operative society. The appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the executive gain sharing payment was a contingent liability and not deductible. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to expense reallocation, finding it illogical in a cost-plus model where costs and revenues move together.
The Tribunal held that the learned TPO and DRP were not justified in rejecting the internal TNMM and the segmental results furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that segmental computation of margins, with income allocated on an actual basis using invoice-level data and common expenses allocated on a net income basis, was reliable and left no scope for arbitrariness. The Tribunal also found the allocation of rent and advertising/business promotion expenses exclusively to the non-AE segment logical and consistent with the assessee's business model, especially since the TPO/DRP did not point out any factual error. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even with a conservative assumption against the assessee regarding these expenses, the AE segment margin remained higher than the non-AE segment margin, strongly supporting the claim that international transactions were at arm's length. The Tribunal emphasized that rejection based on procedural objections like non-maintenance of separately audited segmental accounts was not warranted, as the law does not mandate separate audited segmental accounts for transfer pricing purposes, provided the data is reasonable, consistent, and reconcilable with audited accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the internal comparables adopted by the assessee were reliable and demonstrated that the margin from AE transactions was higher than from non-AE transactions, thus establishing that the international transactions were at arm's length. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to accept the internal TNMM adopted by the assessee and delete the transfer pricing adjustment. The grounds related to the main issue were allowed. Other grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous because they were alternative claims to the main issue which had been allowed.
The Tribunal addressed several grounds. For issues concerning the recategorization of the DCM segment to ITeS and the comparability analysis for SWD and DCM segments (Grounds 3.1 to 3.2 and 4.1 to 4.8), the assessee did not press these issues, and they were dismissed as not pressed. Regarding the application of the upper turnover filter (Ground 4.9), the judgment does not explicitly record the Tribunal's decision on this specific point, implying it may have been subsumed within the broader dismissal of grounds related to comparability analysis. For the SWD and DCM/ITeS segments, the Tribunal noted the DRP's directions for exclusion/inclusion of comparables and recomputation of margins, leading to revised TP adjustments. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 30,30,210/- made under Section 36(1)(va) as the employees' contribution to PF was deposited within the statutory due date, holding the CPC's adjustment incorrect. The levy of interest under Section 234B was dismissed as infructuous. For Section 234C interest, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the interest strictly in accordance with law on the returned income, verifying the assessee's computation, and granting consequential relief. The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A was dismissed as premature and consequential. The ratio for the Section 36(1)(va) issue is that if employee contributions are deposited within the due date prescribed by welfare legislation, no disallowance can be made under this provision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the administrative changes and management transitions within the co-operative society. The appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the ground relating to the treatment of costs connected to ESOPs became infructuous as no transfer pricing adjustment was made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) concerning the ITeS segment. Therefore, there was no requirement to compute the cost base of the assessee for that segment. Regarding the interest on overdue receivables, the judgment does not explicitly state a finding or reasoning for this specific issue, implying it might have been resolved or not pressed further in the final decision presented. However, the operative part of the judgment indicates a partial allowance of the appeal. Concerning the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G for CSR expenditure, the Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities. It reasoned that the assessee made donations to eligible charitable trusts, which were part of CSR expenditure. While these were disallowed under Section 37 for business profit computation, there was no bar to claiming deduction under Section 80G. The Tribunal found that the donations were not prohibited under Section 80G and relied on judicial precedents. Accordingly, the deduction of ₹8,835,985 was allowed under Section 80G. The interest under Sections 234A and 234C was directed to be computed consequentially.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a state-owned entity and its activities are for the advancement of general public utility. The Tribunal further held that the interest income earned on EMD is also for charitable purposes. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the lack of donations alone is not a reason to deny registration under Section 12AB. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, the Tribunal found the assessee's activities likely fall under 'general public utility'.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB was not justified. It noted that the lack of donations cannot be the sole reason for denying registration, especially when the assessee's purpose is to organize development programs and resolve disputes for industrial units. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's activities are akin to those of a Chamber of Commerce, which are generally considered non-profit and for the benefit of its members and the industrial area. The Tribunal found that the assessee is carrying on objects of general public utility for the larger benefit of industrial units. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, which deals with trade promotion bodies involved in general public utility. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not specify which documents were not furnished to prove the genuineness of activities. Consequently, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration, directing the CIT(E) to examine the annual accounts and activity reports and consider the Supreme Court's judgment. An opportunity of hearing was also to be granted. The rejection of the Section 80G application was also to be reconsidered in light of the 12AB registration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) deleted the additions without properly examining the source of funds and the applicability of Section 69A. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides details of funds received from members.
The Tribunal found discrepancies in the deposit date and noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not adequately verify the additional evidence provided by the assessee, such as cash books, bank statements, sales details, and a gift. The issue was restored to the AO to verify the genuineness of sales and the source of funds, including the gift, and pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal restored the issues of September 2016 turnover discrepancy and the addition for alleged excess turnover from October-December 2016 back to the AO for re-examination. The AO is directed to consider the gross profit already offered by the assessee on these sales.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the condition that the assessee pays Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The case was remitted to the AO for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding valid reasons for the assessee's non-appearance. It was held that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to an ex-employee's email ID. The Tribunal set aside the orders of CIT(A) and AO and remitted the issue back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details of debtors and their GSTIN numbers, and the cash flow statement showed consistency. The Tribunal found that the addition made under Section 68 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) deleted the additions without properly examining the source of funds and the applicability of Section 69A. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides details of funds received from members.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) deleted the additions without properly examining the source of funds and the applicability of Section 69A. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides details of funds received from members.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive the hearing notice due to an outdated email ID and thus was unable to respond. Consequently, one more opportunity should be granted.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in computing the long-term capital gain by disallowing the cost of construction and commission expenses. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a statement of accounts from the developer, Purvankara Projects Ltd., indicating a cost of acquisition of ₹5,506,654. The sale deed confirmed the sale of a constructed property. The Tribunal found no provision in the law that prevents the allowance of construction cost as a deduction when a constructed property is sold. The Tribunal also found it unreasonable to disallow the sales commission of ₹2 lakhs paid to the broker, especially when the broker's name and agreement details were provided. The Tribunal directed the ITO to recompute the capital gain by allowing the cost of acquisition, construction costs, and sales commission. The ITO was also directed to verify the cost of improvement. The assessee was directed to submit bank statements from the date of acquisition to sale. Regarding the refund, the Tribunal held that there is no provision restricting the claim of tax credit in reassessment proceedings and directed the ITO to grant credit for taxes paid. The appeal was allowed on the ground of capital gain computation and the refund claim.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's decision to allow the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was based on plausible views and supported by High Court decisions. The PCIT's revisionary order was found to be improper as the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry and recorded an express view.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as the interest income is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd.
The Tribunal held that for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, making the reassessment invalid. For AY 2014-15, a common approval for 83 parties was found to be without application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not based on the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer, and a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years vitiates the proceedings. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, making the reassessment invalid. For AY 2014-15, a common approval for 83 parties was found to be without application of mind.
The Tribunal held that for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas it should have been by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment years. For AY 2014-15, a common approval for multiple parties was also deemed invalid due to a lack of application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not based on the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer, and a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years vitiates the proceedings. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by providing complete details of the unsecured loan received and repaid through banking channels, corroborated by bank statements, financial statements, confirmation letters, and the return of income filed by the parties. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not dispute these documents nor held them to be non-genuine, and crucially, there was no discussion of this documentary evidence in their orders. The Tribunal emphasized that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was seized during the search in the case of M/s. Patel RPL Realty Group, except for the assessee's ledger account which was part of its regular books of account. Citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in respect of completed or unabated assessments. Therefore, the Tribunal found no justification for the addition and directed its deletion. The issue regarding the notice u/s. 143(2) was implicitly addressed by allowing the appeal based on the lack of incriminating material and the sufficiency of evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and annual accounts, to demonstrate the source of funds from its US parent company. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 80P deduction for a belated return is valid, following the Madras High Court's decision. The assessee was advised to file an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b).
The Tribunal held that expenditures on repairs and maintenance, including for magnetic particles removal and effluent treatment plant parts, were routine replacements not providing enduring benefit, and thus were revenue expenditures. It further held that professional charges for share transfer work, share capital audit report reconciliation, and equity share listing were allowable business expenditures under Section 37(1), as they were not for fresh capital issue. The AO was directed to delete both disallowances.
The Tribunal noted that the primary issue for AY 2013-14 was still pending before the CIT(A) after 8 years. The CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 had confirmed disallowances despite the pendency of the earlier year's appeal.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. This was because the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A), leading to an ex parte order. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the amounts confirmed by the CIT(A) compared to the Assessing Officer and the lack of reference to issuing notices under Section 251.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee and allow them to file objections. The AO was also directed to examine the source of funds for the wife and the assessee's opening cash balance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), reversing the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 80P deduction for a belated return is valid, following the Madras High Court's decision. The assessee was advised to file an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b).
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer, keeping all contentions open, to provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing to decide on the reopening and merits.
The Tribunal held that the issue raised was debatable and beyond the scope of rectification under Section 154. Therefore, the denial of exemption by CPC under Section 143(1) was incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), reversing the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal noted that the primary issue for AY 2013-14 was still pending before the CIT(A) after 8 years. The CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 had confirmed disallowances despite the pendency of the earlier year's appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal, finding the explanation provided in the condonation application and affidavit to be plausible and sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance despite opportunities. Since both parties conceded that the assessee could not represent their case before the CIT(A), the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to remit the entire issue in dispute back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings and not seek unnecessary adjournments. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for negligence shown towards statutory notices before the first appellate stage, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1.20 crore under Section 69A was not sustainable as the assessee had explained the source of the cash as business receipts, and the books of account were not rejected. Taxing the same income twice was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of a return for F.Y. 2024-25 was not a defect, as the assessment year had not been completed. It found that the Ld. CIT(E) had issued a cryptic order without granting the mandatory personal hearing as per Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B), violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remitted the matters back to the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo consideration after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.