Loading ITAT cases…
273 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record satisfaction regarding the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee before computing disallowance under Section 14A. The AO's disallowance of Rs. 11,37,141/- was therefore not justifiable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground relating to the disallowance of depreciation of goodwill under section 32 of the Act. It held that the amendment by the Finance Act 2021 excluding goodwill from depreciable intangible assets was not applicable for AY 2020-21. Following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd., the Tribunal directed the AO to allow depreciation claimed by the assessee on goodwill arising on amalgamation, considering it as an asset whose value was enhanced. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the TDS credits claimed by the assessee and grant credit subject to verification, allowing this ground for statistical purposes. Grounds B4, B5, and B6 were noted as consequential and not adjudicated. The Tribunal did not provide a specific finding on the transfer pricing adjustments, disallowance under section 14A, disallowance of legal and professional fees, or disallowance under section 80JJAA, but the overall result indicates these were not fully allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153C was invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search. The disallowance of farm maintenance expenses was deleted, following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the assessee's Transfer Pricing Study Report (TPSR) on incorrect grounds. The TPO had accepted most of the assessee's filters and data but made minor tweaks to some filters, leading to the rejection of the entire study. The Tribunal found that the information and data used in the assessee's computation were not stated to be unreliable or incorrect. Therefore, Ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal was allowed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine whether the arm's length price could be determined by modifying the filters that the TPO disagreed with, using the 491 comparable companies identified by the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide the database and accept/reject matrix to the AO. Grounds 2 and 3 were dismissed as they did not require adjudication in light of the decision on Ground 1. Regarding Ground 4 (interest on delayed trade receivables), the Tribunal found that interest on outstanding receivables could constitute a separate international transaction if not aggregated with profit margins. It also held that outstanding payables and receivables do not correlate, and no set-off can be granted. However, as the issue of determining the arm's length price for software development was restored to the AO, this issue also needed to be addressed by the assessee before the AO. Therefore, Ground No. 4 was restored to the file of the AO. Ground No. 5 (initiation of penalty proceedings) was dismissed as no arguments were advanced, and it was considered premature. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the intimation under section 143(1) issued after the initiation of scrutiny proceedings under section 143(2) is bad in law. Consequently, any adjustments made via the 143(1) intimation are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153C was invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search. The disallowance of farm maintenance expenses was deleted, following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153C was invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search. The disallowance of farm maintenance expenses was deleted, following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the claim for cost of improvement required proper verification and determination. It directed the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the cost of improvement/construction.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153C is unsustainable in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., the disallowance of farm maintenance expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153C was invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search. The disallowance of farm maintenance expenses was deleted, following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the assessee regarding cost of construction, improvement, nature of capital gain, and Section 54 deduction required proper verification. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the assessee's counsel's inadvertent mistake in missing hearing notices.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the margins of comparable companies and determine the arm's length price. Several comparable companies were ordered to be excluded or included based on specific filters like related party transactions and intangibles.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims not made in the original return, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The Revenue has an obligation to grant TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS for assessable income, as it is a statutory right of the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. It held that the notice under section 148A(b) was invalid as it did not grant the mandatory minimum period of 7 days for response, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the 54-day delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause as it was unaware of the assessment order's passing until penalty notices were issued. Regarding the DIN issue (Ground No. 4), the Tribunal dismissed this ground as it was part of a batch of similar matters where arguments were not fully elaborated or were rendered infructuous by other findings. The primary issue of limitation (Grounds Nos. 5 to 7) was decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated January 24, 2023, was barred by limitation. It reasoned that the limitation period for completing the assessment, following the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 624/Bangalore/2017, expired on March 31, 2021. The Revenue's contention that Section 153(4) provided an extension was rejected, as a fresh reference to the TPO with prior approval was not required when the issue was restored to the AO for recomputation. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed as barred by limitation. Grounds relating to transfer pricing adjustment (Nos. 12 and 13), denial of hearing opportunity (No. 14), and general grounds (Nos. 1-3, 15) were dismissed as either infructuous or not pressed. Grounds Nos. 9 to 11 were also dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar to filing a fresh application when a previous one was rejected for non-compliance and not on merits. The assessee had also responded to show cause notices and provided details.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reasons for non-compliance, including issues with email communication and a partner's illness. It granted the assessee an opportunity to present their case and documents to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. It held that the notice under section 148A(b) was invalid as it did not grant the mandatory minimum period of 7 days for response, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the earlier order for section 12AB application had been set aside and remitted. Therefore, the rejection of the section 80G application, which was based on the 12AB rejection, was also set aside and remitted to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court's decision in a rectification application under Section 154 constitutes a 'mistake apparent from record'. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the rejection of the rectification application.
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, and direct payments to suppliers, establishing the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the basis of addition was changed by the CIT(A) without proper notice to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's father became the owner of the property on May 24, 1980, by virtue of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to adopt the fair market value as of April 1, 1981, for computing the cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal held that the payment of tax and interest was not voluntary but a consequence of the assessment order and penalty proceedings. Since the under-reporting of income was due to misreporting, the penalty under Section 270A at 200% was mandatory and upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired land valued at ₹98,010,000 for a consideration of ₹15,750,000, resulting in a taxable benefit of ₹82,260,000 under Section 28(iv). The contention that the benefit was not real or that it would be offset by increased cost of acquisition was rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the 45-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's illness. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's submissions regarding bank transfers and restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish supporting documents for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the original appeal (ITA No. 2130/Bangalore/2026) had become infructuous due to the duplicate filing and was therefore dismissed. The rectified appeal (ITA No. 2383/Bangalore/2026) was admitted without delay.
The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2022-23. In that decision, the Tribunal considered an identical issue regarding the taxability of software supply consideration and decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the receipts from the sale of standard software were neither royalty under the Income Tax Act nor under the DTAA and were therefore not chargeable to tax in India. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of additions made on account of cross-charges for third-party hardware. For the current assessment year, the revenue did not present any new material showing a change in facts, terms of agreements, or the applicable legal position. Consequently, following the precedent, the Tribunal held that the consideration received from Indian end-users for software supply cannot be treated as royalty. It is in the nature of business income and, in the absence of a PE in India, is not taxable under Article 7 of the India-USA DTAA. The addition made by the AO was deleted, and the ground raised by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of the balance investment of Rs. 10,99,023/- by providing documentary evidence of fund transfers and withdrawals. The addition of Rs. 30,900/- due to an overstatement of stamp duty was also directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the excess claim of interest was due to an inadvertent error and not a deliberate misreporting of income. The penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable as the assessee did not derive any tax benefit and the mistake was a human error.
The Tribunal held that non-compliance by the assessee cannot be a ground to dismiss the appeal without examining the issue on merits. The CIT(A) was required to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the first appeal, subject to a cost, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. For the second appeal, the Tribunal also restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost, to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s powers are coterminous with the AO and that the CIT(A) should have considered fresh evidence or sought a remand report. Since detailed factual verification was required, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to appear and cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider the submitted documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the explanation for non-compliance to be plausible and sufficient. The case was then remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reason plausible. The Tribunal remitted the entire issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of acquiring rights in the property from an earlier financial year (2003-04) required verification. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the assessee's uploaded submissions, violating natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the AO should not have completely disallowed the Section 54F deduction without considering the valuation report and completion certificate.
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, fit the definition of 'co-operative society' under Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and are eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's ill health, supported by a medical certificate. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment order to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that while the denial of exemption under Section 11 due to non-registration under Section 12AB was upheld, the gross receipts should not be taxed. Instead, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to tax only the net profit after allowing eligible expenditures.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, following various High Court judgments that held such delays to be procedural and curable. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the exemption claim on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the law by attaching the scanned copy of Form 10CCB due to technical non-availability. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IB could not be denied solely on account of this technical shortcoming.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing details of depositors and that the cash deposits were legitimate business receipts from loan recoveries and savings account deposits from its members. The Tribunal found that the addition under Section 68 was unwarranted as the source of funds was explained and the deposits were accepted by the banks.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for bad debts, finding that they were advanced in the ordinary course of business and written off as irrecoverable after best efforts. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal against the addition for cash deposits, stating that the utilization of cash is not the basis for treating deposits as unexplained and that the non-service of notices due to insufficient address does not automatically lead to additions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 308 days, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, decided to remit the entire issue back to the AO for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to produce complete books of accounts and details of members' transactions.
The Tribunal held that the inclusion of the four companies, Tata Consultancy Services, LTI Mindtree Ltd., Mindtree Ltd., and Tata Elxsi Ltd., as comparables was not justified. The Tribunal noted that these companies had turnovers of Rs. 1,60,341 crores, Rs. 14,406 crores, Rs. 10,525 crores, and Rs. 2,471 crores respectively, which were significantly higher than the assessee's turnover of Rs. 33 crores. Applying the principle established in several coordinate bench decisions, which allows for the exclusion of companies with extremely high turnovers and brand value, and considering that companies within a turnover range of up to 10 times the assessee's turnover could be considered for proper comparability, the Tribunal found that these four companies exceeded this limit. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed grounds 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the assessee, directing the AO to exclude these companies from the comparability analysis and recompute the ALP after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The issue related to ground no. 22 was remitted to the AO for decision in accordance with law. Other grounds not pressed were not adjudicated.