Loading ITAT cases…
105 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's books of accounts were audited, and no defects were pointed out by revenue authorities. Differences between Form 26AS and the books might arise due to various reasons beyond the assessee's control. The AO should have conducted further inquiries instead of making a straight addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's bonafide medical reasons and his Chartered Accountant's health issues. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without hearing the assessee on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of the additional ground and held that software expenses, if application software with enduring benefit, are revenue expenditure. Foreign tax credit was allowed as business expenditure for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a plausible view, the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(Exemption) issued notices, the assessee had visited the office seeking an extension and subsequently submitted documents. The Tribunal found that the contention of non-response and failure to submit documents was not entirely correct.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P should be computed with reference to the Gross Total Income, not just business income. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the deduction accordingly.
The Tribunal held that software license fees, if for application software with limited usage rights, can be treated as revenue expenditure. It also found that trademarks, business contracts, technology, and goodwill are generally eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, subject to specific conditions and the impact of recent amendments.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to a complete absence of inquiry on significant claims. The revisionary order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted proper inquiries and applied his mind before passing the assessment order. It held that when two plausible views are possible, and the AO has adopted one, the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he disagrees with the AO's view. The Tribunal distinguished the reliance placed on the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. case by the PCIT.
The Tribunal noted that while the Assessee could not furnish complete details for the cost of improvement and brokerage, they provided some information. The Assessing Officer had the power to verify these costs, potentially with the help of a valuation officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing merits. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-evaluation.
The Tribunal noted that the previous order had set aside the quantum assessment. Therefore, penalty proceedings based on an assessment order that is no longer valid cannot be sustained. The penalty proceedings were also set aside for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found it surprising and unacceptable that the AO disallowed interest without proper reasoning. Although the assessee was given multiple opportunities, they failed to submit evidence. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity but imposing a cost.
The Tribunal held that the approval of the R&D facility by DSIR and the genuineness of the expenditure were not disputed. The non-furnishing of Form 3CL during assessment and partial quantification by DSIR should not deny the weighted deduction, especially when the assessee also claimed alternative relief.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of the additional ground and held that software expenses, if application software with enduring benefit, are revenue expenditure. Foreign tax credit was allowed as business expenditure for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P should be computed with reference to the Gross Total Income, not just business income. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the deduction accordingly.
The Tribunal allowed the admission of the additional ground and held that software expenses, if application software with enduring benefit, are revenue expenditure. Foreign tax credit was allowed as business expenditure for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P should be computed with reference to the Gross Total Income, not just business income. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the deduction accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer, after making inquiries and verification, had taken a plausible view which was not unsustainable in law. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal held that for the first issue, concerning the addition of Rs.112,98,061 under Section 68, the provisions of Section 68 apply only when a sum is found credited in the books of account and its nature and source are not explained. If the credit balance of a creditor does not represent a sum credited during the impugned previous year, no addition can be made under Section 68 for that year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the credit did not appear in the books for the impugned year and had submitted invoices and ledger accounts. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to demonstrate that the credit did not appear in the books for the impugned year and allowing the assessee to reiterate all evidence. For the second issue, regarding the disallowance of travel & conveyance expenses of Rs.209,85,092, the Tribunal acknowledged the voluminous nature of the expenses (Rs.11.86 crores) and the difficulty in providing exhaustive details. It found it surprising that the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% and allowed 80%. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO, directing the assessee to compile complete details in a presentable manner explaining the nature of expenditure and to produce necessary details for a reasonable decision on allowability.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), following a later judgment of the jurisdictional High Court. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was deemed justified.
The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee from software licenses and the sale of software embedded in hardware is neither chargeable to tax as royalty under the Income Tax Act nor under the India-Ireland DTAA. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the assessee's case was identical to the facts and circumstances decided by a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding assessment year (AY 2021-22) in IT(IT)A No.1159/Bang/2023. That coordinate bench, in turn, had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited and subsequent decisions like Microsoft Regional Sales Pte Limited and MOL Corporation. The Tribunal found no distinction in the facts presented in the current appeal. The reasoning was that the transactions involved the sale of copyrighted articles and not the copyright itself, and the software licenses granted did not confer rights to modify or tamper with the source code, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation. The Tribunal also noted that hardware replacement and support services were considered sales of embedded software in hardware, not fees for technical services. Therefore, the addition of Rs.160 crores was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the genuine hardship faced by the assessee. The issue was whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction for the cost of acquisition and improvement of the inherited property. The Tribunal found that the existence of the residential building and renovation could not be dismissed for lack of absolute documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that passing a reassessment order in the name of a non-existent entity, which has merged with another company, is invalid and deserves to be quashed. This jurisdictional ground, raised for the first time, goes to the root of the matter and is therefore admitted.
The Tribunal held as follows: On the exclusion of R Systems International Ltd. (Ground No. 16): The Tribunal found that if data for a comparable company can be meaningfully constructed from its quarterly results, it should not be excluded solely because its financial year differs from the assessee's, provided the functional comparability exists. The assessee was directed to produce the financial results of R Systems International Ltd. for the relevant financial year for comparability analysis, and the AO was directed to include it if found correct. This ground was allowed to that extent. On the exclusion of Rheal Software P. Ltd. (Ground No. 20): The Tribunal noted that the 'persistent loss filter' was applied without clear criteria. As Rheal Software P. Ltd. earned profits in FY 2018-19, it could not be excluded on this basis. The exclusion was not upheld, and the AO was directed to include this company. On the comparison with giant companies (Ground No. 22): The Tribunal agreed that companies with significantly higher turnover and brand value, such as Mindtree Ltd., L&T Infotech, Wipro Ltd., Tata Elxsi Ltd., Infosys Ltd., Tata Consultancy Services, and Cybage Software P. Ltd., cannot be compared with the assessee. The AO was directed to exclude these companies from the comparability analysis and make a fresh computation. This ground was partly allowed. On the computation of interest on overdue receivables (Ground No. 30): The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim that SBI PLR is not appropriate for computing interest on foreign currency invoices. It directed the AO to compute the interest by adopting an appropriate rate based on LIBOR, as stated by the AO himself in his order. This ground was allowed. No other grounds were pressed and were dismissed.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal concerning transfer pricing. It held that telecommunication expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 15 days in filing the present appeal, deeming it nominal and unintentional. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered all the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in the previous appeal. The Tribunal also noted a potential issue of double taxation of salary income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not provided the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The assessee filed a letter to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s exclusion of certain comparables in the transfer pricing adjustment was justified. Regarding the disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal found that the taxability of payments to a third party for relocation services under the India-US DTAA was not adequately examined.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s rejection of additional evidence submitted by the assessee was technical and that the assessee's contentions were not considered. The Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the scope of enquiry under Section 12AB is limited to the charitable nature of objects and genuineness of activities, not detailed financial scrutiny. Issues like donor creditworthiness and asset ownership are beyond the registration stage.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee, being a co-operative credit society earning interest from co-operative banks, should be allowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not establish that the interest income was not attributable to the specified business of the Assessee or that it was from funds not required for business purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed responded to notices and appeared. However, due to the temporary absence of the authorized representative and the issuance of a show cause notice during this period, a proper reply was not filed. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was not in conformity with the DRP's directions, specifically concerning the addition of Rs. 1,44,38,804 for assets imported free of cost. The DRP had directed this to be treated as business income under section 28(iv), but the AO incorrectly sustained the addition under section 69C. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the DRP's directions were not followed, and this violation of section 144C(13) rendered the assessment order invalid to that extent. Therefore, Ground No. 3 of the assessee was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 1,44,38,804 under section 69C was deleted. Regarding additions sustained under section 69C amounting to Rs. 7,41,309, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had substantiated the majority of imports and deleted the remaining addition, allowing Ground No. 5. For amounts of Rs. 11,86,627 and Rs. 16,76,434, where the DRP sustained additions under section 69C due to the assessee not following DRP Rules for additional evidence, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity. The issue was remitted back to the AO to admit the additional evidence and allow the claim in accordance with law, with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, allowing Ground No. 4 for statistical purposes. Ground No. 6 concerning TP adjustment was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. Grounds 1, 2, 7, and 8 were either general, consequential, or not pressed.
The assessee filed a letter to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not valid. It found that the AO had taken a plausible view, supported by jurisdictional High Court decisions, in allowing the deduction. The PCIT could not substitute his own judgment for that of the AO when the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s exclusion of certain comparables in the transfer pricing adjustment was justified. Regarding the disallowance of expenses, the Tribunal found that the taxability of payments to a third party for relocation services under the India-US DTAA was not adequately examined.
The Tribunal held that deductions under sections 15-17 of the Act, including HRA and perquisites, should be allowed if in accordance with law, irrespective of whether a return was filed. It further clarified that deductions under Sections 80C, 80D, and 80TTA are not prohibited by Section 80AC, even if the return was not filed on time, as these fall under different categories.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal concerning transfer pricing. It held that telecommunication expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following Supreme Court precedent.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be invoked when the assessed income matches the returned income, as there is no under-reporting. Furthermore, offering income on an estimated basis without specific findings of misreporting does not attract penalty under Section 270A(9)(e).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be invoked when the assessed income matches the returned income, as there is no under-reporting. Furthermore, offering income on an estimated basis without specific findings of misreporting does not attract penalty under Section 270A(9)(e).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be invoked when the assessed income matches the returned income, as there is no under-reporting. Furthermore, offering income on an estimated basis without specific findings of misreporting does not attract penalty under Section 270A(9)(e).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be invoked when the assessed income matches the returned income, as there is no under-reporting. Furthermore, offering income on an estimated basis without specific findings of misreporting does not attract penalty under Section 270A(9)(e).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be invoked when the assessed income matches the returned income, as there is no under-reporting. Furthermore, offering income on an estimated basis without specific findings of misreporting does not attract penalty under Section 270A(9)(e).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be invoked when the assessed income matches the returned income, as there is no under-reporting. Furthermore, offering income on an estimated basis without specific findings of misreporting does not attract penalty under Section 270A(9)(e).
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the license fees received by the assessee from its customers for using the software could not be treated as royalty. The reasoning was based on the Tribunal's consistent view in the assessee's own cases for AY 2010-11 and AY 2021-22, which relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (432 ITR 471). The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had subsequently affirmed this judgment by dismissing the review petition filed by the revenue and also a Special Leave Petition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had granted only a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, and non-transferable license to use the software, without granting specific rights to make copies or exploit the copyright, which is essential for treating the receipts as royalty. The DRP's reliance on the pending review petition was disregarded in light of the Supreme Court's subsequent dismissals. The operative direction was to delete the addition made under the head 'Income from other sources' treating the receipts as royalty.
The Tribunal held that revenue recognition under the Percentage Completion Method (PCM) must be based on legally enforceable agreements and not mere bookings or advances. It also noted that taxing the same income in two different years leads to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the confirmed facts that the Assessee company has closed its operations in India and its ultimate holding company has undergone liquidation. The Tribunal found no mechanism to ascertain the current whereabouts of the Assessee company. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer and the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel, even on merits, due to the absence of any details from the Assessee. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Assessee to make a necessary application for recall of the order if circumstances change and they wish to pursue the appeal, subject to provisions of law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) filed a withdrawal application dated 06/01/2026, stating that instructions were received from the assessee to withdraw the appeal considering the small quantum of demand involved. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection to this request. The Tribunal, having perused the withdrawal application and heard both sides, allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the additions proposed by the AO and confirmed by the DRP, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that revenue recognition under the Percentage Completion Method (PCM) must be based on legally enforceable agreements and not mere bookings or advances. It also noted that taxing the same income in two different years leads to double taxation.