ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2023

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the treatment of advance membership fees, directing the AO to follow previous ITAT orders. The appeals concerning depreciation on electrical installations and non-compete fees were decided based on the specific grounds raised.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's order dated 01.11.2019 for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation. This was based on the High Court's decision in the revenue's writ appeals, which confirmed that the 60-day period prior to the expiry of the limitation under section 153 is mandatory. The Tribunal reasoned that excluding 31.12.2019, the 60-day period expired on 01.11.2019, meaning the TPO's order should have been passed on or before 31.10.2019. As a consequence, the TPO's order was time-barred, rendering the assessee not an eligible assessee for the machinery of section 144C to be triggered. The Tribunal further held that the final assessment order for AY 2015-16, passed on 30.04.2021, was also barred by limitation, as it should have been passed by 31.12.2019. Consequently, the assessment orders were declared nullities. Delving into the merits of the transfer pricing adjustments and additions to income was rendered academic. The appeal for AY 2016-17 was allowed, and the appeal for AY 2015-16 was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the primary relief being the quashing of the assessment orders due to limitation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had concealed income by not disclosing the sale of goodwill and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was confirmed as the assessee's arguments regarding the absence of goodwill and the initiation of penalty proceedings were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. Similarly, the assessee could not substantiate the claimed expenses. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received for setting up a new power plant is a capital receipt and should be reduced from the cost of the asset, not treated as taxable income. The Tribunal also directed to delete the disallowance made under Section 14A for book profit computation under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the land was indeed agricultural land based on revenue records, certificates, and past usage. Therefore, the sale proceeds were not taxable as capital gains.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s order, finding that the trust was established exclusively for a particular sub-sect and not for the general public. Therefore, it did not qualify as a public religious trust eligible for registration under Section 12AA.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the treatment of advance membership fees, directing the AO to follow previous ITAT orders. The appeals concerning depreciation on electrical installations and non-compete fees were decided based on the specific grounds raised.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked detailed factual findings regarding the change of opinion and the JCIT's approval. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh reconsideration.

The Tribunal is hearing the appeal and cross-objection together as the facts and issues are common. The specific decision on the 'Trade Payable' claim is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had adequately examined the issues raised by the PCIT during the assessment proceedings. The PCIT's conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue was not substantiated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the PCIT did not provide sufficient time for the assessee to file a reply to the show-cause notice, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's order dated 01.11.2019 for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation. This was based on the High Court's decision in the revenue's writ appeals, which confirmed that the 60-day period prior to the expiry of the limitation under section 153 is mandatory. The Tribunal reasoned that excluding 31.12.2019, the 60-day period expired on 01.11.2019, meaning the TPO's order should have been passed on or before 31.10.2019. As a consequence, the TPO's order was time-barred, rendering the assessee not an eligible assessee for the machinery of section 144C to be triggered. The Tribunal further held that the final assessment order for AY 2015-16, passed on 30.04.2021, was also barred by limitation, as it should have been passed by 31.12.2019. Consequently, the assessment orders were declared nullities. Delving into the merits of the transfer pricing adjustments and additions to income was rendered academic. The appeal for AY 2016-17 was allowed, and the appeal for AY 2015-16 was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the primary relief being the quashing of the assessment orders due to limitation.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, including the validity of reopening under Section 147 and the approval under Section 151.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence sought to be produced by the assessee and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the investigation report to the assessee or allowing cross-examination of third parties. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the written-off advances were inextricably linked to the assessee's business and provided a business advantage, thus qualifying as a business loss of a revenue nature. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for all years failed on both legal grounds and merits. Regarding the validity of reopening under section 147, the Tribunal found that the reasons for reopening were unsustainable and amounted to a mere change of opinion, especially given the prior issuance of a certificate under section 172. On the taxability of documentation and vessel handling charges, the Tribunal noted that these were independent services rendered by BTL India to its customers, and the assessee had no right to receive this income. Furthermore, it was held that these charges were in the nature of shipping income and thus taxable only in Singapore under Article 8 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Concerning international shipping income, the Tribunal reiterated that Article 8 of the DTAA grants exclusive taxation rights to the country of residence, Singapore, and that Article 24 (Limitation of Benefit) was not applicable as the conditions were not fulfilled. The Tribunal relied on its own co-ordinate bench's decision for AY 2015-16 in the assessee's own case, which had decided similar issues in favour of the assessee, and also cited precedents like M.T. Maersk Mikage. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue's arguments were not accepted and the assessee succeeded in all appeals. The connected stay applications were dismissed as infructuous. The operative direction was that the appeals stand partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for all years failed on both legal grounds and merits. Regarding the validity of reopening under section 147, the Tribunal found that the reasons for reopening were unsustainable and amounted to a mere change of opinion, especially given the prior issuance of a certificate under section 172. On the taxability of documentation and vessel handling charges, the Tribunal noted that these were independent services rendered by BTL India to its customers, and the assessee had no right to receive this income. Furthermore, it was held that these charges were in the nature of shipping income and thus taxable only in Singapore under Article 8 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Concerning international shipping income, the Tribunal reiterated that Article 8 of the DTAA grants exclusive taxation rights to the country of residence, Singapore, and that Article 24 (Limitation of Benefit) was not applicable as the conditions were not fulfilled. The Tribunal relied on its own co-ordinate bench's decision for AY 2015-16 in the assessee's own case, which had decided similar issues in favour of the assessee, and also cited precedents like M.T. Maersk Mikage. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue's arguments were not accepted and the assessee succeeded in all appeals. The connected stay applications were dismissed as infructuous. The operative direction was that the appeals stand partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for all years failed on both legal grounds and merits. Regarding the validity of reopening under section 147, the Tribunal found that the reasons for reopening were unsustainable and amounted to a mere change of opinion, especially given the prior issuance of a certificate under section 172. On the taxability of documentation and vessel handling charges, the Tribunal noted that these were independent services rendered by BTL India to its customers, and the assessee had no right to receive this income. Furthermore, it was held that these charges were in the nature of shipping income and thus taxable only in Singapore under Article 8 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Concerning international shipping income, the Tribunal reiterated that Article 8 of the DTAA grants exclusive taxation rights to the country of residence, Singapore, and that Article 24 (Limitation of Benefit) was not applicable as the conditions were not fulfilled. The Tribunal relied on its own co-ordinate bench's decision for AY 2015-16 in the assessee's own case, which had decided similar issues in favour of the assessee, and also cited precedents like M.T. Maersk Mikage. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue's arguments were not accepted and the assessee succeeded in all appeals. The connected stay applications were dismissed as infructuous. The operative direction was that the appeals stand partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for all years failed on both legal grounds and merits. Regarding the validity of reopening under section 147, the Tribunal found that the reasons for reopening were unsustainable and amounted to a mere change of opinion, especially given the prior issuance of a certificate under section 172. On the taxability of documentation and vessel handling charges, the Tribunal noted that these were independent services rendered by BTL India to its customers, and the assessee had no right to receive this income. Furthermore, it was held that these charges were in the nature of shipping income and thus taxable only in Singapore under Article 8 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Concerning international shipping income, the Tribunal reiterated that Article 8 of the DTAA grants exclusive taxation rights to the country of residence, Singapore, and that Article 24 (Limitation of Benefit) was not applicable as the conditions were not fulfilled. The Tribunal relied on its own co-ordinate bench's decision for AY 2015-16 in the assessee's own case, which had decided similar issues in favour of the assessee, and also cited precedents like M.T. Maersk Mikage. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue's arguments were not accepted and the assessee succeeded in all appeals. The connected stay applications were dismissed as infructuous. The operative direction was that the appeals stand partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for all years failed on both legal grounds and merits. Regarding the validity of reopening under section 147, the Tribunal found that the reasons for reopening were unsustainable and amounted to a mere change of opinion, especially given the prior issuance of a certificate under section 172. On the taxability of documentation and vessel handling charges, the Tribunal noted that these were independent services rendered by BTL India to its customers, and the assessee had no right to receive this income. Furthermore, it was held that these charges were in the nature of shipping income and thus taxable only in Singapore under Article 8 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Concerning international shipping income, the Tribunal reiterated that Article 8 of the DTAA grants exclusive taxation rights to the country of residence, Singapore, and that Article 24 (Limitation of Benefit) was not applicable as the conditions were not fulfilled. The Tribunal relied on its own co-ordinate bench's decision for AY 2015-16 in the assessee's own case, which had decided similar issues in favour of the assessee, and also cited precedents like M.T. Maersk Mikage. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue's arguments were not accepted and the assessee succeeded in all appeals. The connected stay applications were dismissed as infructuous. The operative direction was that the appeals stand partly allowed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal concerning the limitation period. It found that the assessment order appeared to be passed beyond the statutory time limit. However, since the issue was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and the DRP had not examined it, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the AO had properly examined the issue of Section 14A disallowance, considering the assessee's detailed replies and relevant case laws. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal concerning the limitation period, citing the Supreme Court decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd vs CIT. The Tribunal noted that the final assessment order for AY 2012-13, passed on February 17, 2017, appeared to be beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(1)(a) and its proviso, which stipulated an order by March 13, 2016. However, since the DRP had not examined this issue, and the assessee raised it for the first time before the Tribunal, the matter was set aside to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the preliminary objection on limitation in light of the Madras High Court decision in CIT vs Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd, obtaining necessary directions from the DRP if required. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The judgment does not record findings on the TP adjustment or the disallowance of management fees.

The Tribunal found that while Section 40A(3) was applicable, the lower authorities had not adequately examined whether the truck drivers were agents of the assessee or the supplier. Considering the profit margins, the Tribunal estimated a disallowance of 25% of the sand supply cost.

The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the absence of any application for condonation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.

The tribunal noted that the assessee company has been dissolved by the NCLT. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous.

The tribunal noted that the appeal was time-barred and the assessee was not interested in prosecuting it. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee, despite multiple hearing dates. Therefore, the case was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh consideration.