Loading ITAT cases…
133 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that TNMM with Berry Ratio was not the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions. It directed the TPO to re-examine the case and consider CUP or Resale Price Method (RPM) as suggested by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction was due to a mistake in filling the return and not a new claim. The assessee's valid claim should not be jeopardized by such errors. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the AO to verify the claim and re-compute the income.
The Tribunal addressed the grounds of appeal as follows: Regarding the inclusion of legal and professional charges in operating profit margin (Ground No. 2), the Tribunal, after perusing the details of expenditure, found that the 'legal & professional charges' were routine in nature and akin to operating expenses incurred by any entity. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision and rejected the assessee's argument for exclusion. The Tribunal did not explicitly state the amount of Rs. 34,29,749/- mentioned in the ground. Concerning the exclusion of M/s. Writefine Products Limited based on turnover filter (Ground No. 3), the Tribunal acknowledged that turnover is an important factor in selecting comparables, especially in manufacturing. While the assessee argued for exclusion based on the '10 times' rule, the DRP had adopted a filter of 0-200 Crores turnover for exclusion and had already excluded two companies above this limit. M/s. Writefine Products Limited, with a turnover of Rs. 190 Crores, fell within this range. The Tribunal found no error in the DRP's adopted turnover filter and rejected the assessee's plea for exclusion of this third comparable, noting that the assessee had already sought exclusion of at least two comparables. The Tribunal held that the case laws relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the issue of entity-level adjustment (Ground No. 4), the Tribunal held that entity-level adjustments cannot be made, as it is a well-settled principle of law. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the TPO to make adjustments only to the international transactions of the assessee, thereby allowing this ground. The Tribunal did not explicitly mention the amount of Rs. 12,04,039/- mentioned in the ground. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the TPO on November 1, 2019, was barred by limitation. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt Ltd & ors. (WP Nos. 32688 of 2019 & ors.) dated March 31, 2022, which held that the period of 60 days prior to the expiry of the limitation period for assessment under Section 153 would expire on October 31, 2019, if the assessment limitation expires on December 31, 2019. Therefore, any order passed on November 1, 2019, would be beyond limitation. The Tribunal also referred to a coordinate bench decision in M/s. Eaton Power Quality Private Limited vs DCIT, which followed the Madras High Court's ruling. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the TPO's order was time-barred, rendering the subsequent assessment proceedings, including the final assessment order passed by the AO on January 6, 2020, a nullity. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment order. The issue regarding the SLP was rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's working capital was indeed negative and directed the TPO to grant the adjustment. Regarding the comparables, one was remitted back for verification of functional comparability, and the other was directed to be considered after making suitable adjustments for the different accounting year.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition for unexplained cash deposits, finding that the assessee had sufficient income from the partnership firm and rental income to explain these deposits. Regarding jewellery, the Tribunal allowed relief for a portion, considering it belonged to family members. For the unaccounted cash, a part belonging to the partnership firm was deleted, but the remaining balance was sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the predecessor CIT(A) had called for a remand report, which was not obtained by the subsequent CIT(A) (NFAC). Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to examine the assessee's claim under Section 54F after considering the submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- as unexplained money, while acknowledging the socio-cultural context of marriage gifts. The enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE was also confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard and without deciding on merits. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and submit details.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were fee-based and aimed at advancing objects of general public utility, but were commercial in nature. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, the case was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a retail seller, could have savings. Therefore, a portion of the addition made for unexplained cash deposit was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the final assessment order dated 29-09-2022. The primary ground for allowing the appeal was the issue of limitation. The Tribunal found that the AO passed the final assessment order after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee received the DRP's directions on 29-06-2022, and the communication of such order/direction is an internal administrative exercise of the Department, not affecting the statutory limitation. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in M/s. Wintek Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Pfizer Healthcare India (P) Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai, which held that the time limit provided under Section 144C(13) cannot be extended by any authority and that the assessment order passed beyond the prescribed period is barred by limitation and liable to be declared null and void. Since the appeal was allowed on the preliminary issue of limitation, the other grounds concerning deductions under Sections 80IA, 14A, and 80G were not adjudicated on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were fee-based and aimed at advancing objects of general public utility, but were commercial in nature. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, the case was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the additions by estimating the interest rate at 20% instead of the full 8% difference, considering that not all debtors were charged the higher rate. The Tribunal also found no merit in the assessee's claim of double addition for excess cash and debtors in one year.
The Tribunal deleted the penalty, finding that the notice dated 07.03.2022 was unclear and called for irrelevant details. The assessee could not have reasonably replied to the said notice.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the additions by estimating the interest rate at 20% instead of the full 8% difference, considering that not all debtors were charged the higher rate. The Tribunal also found no merit in the assessee's claim of double addition for excess cash and debtors in one year.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the additions by estimating the interest rate at 20% instead of the full 8% difference, considering that not all debtors were charged the higher rate. The Tribunal also found no merit in the assessee's claim of double addition for excess cash and debtors in one year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee possessed evidence to explain the additions but these required verification at the AO's level. The matter was therefore restored to the AO for examination of the details and a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to a previous assessment year where the matter was remitted back to the AO. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO to reconsider the availability of funds and the correct computation of disallowances under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii).
The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues of the appeals as the hearing was adjourned due to the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue. The Revenue contended that Shri Dinesh Inbavadivu, who was to argue the assessee's case, had previously represented Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, an Accountant Member and CPIO of ITAT, Chennai, in an RTI appeal. This, according to the Revenue, constituted a conflict of interest. The Tribunal noted the preliminary objection and the letter detailing the alleged conflict. The judgment does not record any finding on the merits of the appeals or the validity of the conflict of interest claim. The operative direction was to adjourn the hearing to allow for further consideration of the preliminary issue. No specific issue was left undecided, as the substantive issues were not addressed.
The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in a similar case where a preliminary objection regarding a "conflict of interest" was raised. The Tribunal had adjudicated this issue in the prior case.
The tribunal did not decide on the merits of the case. The primary issue raised was a preliminary objection regarding a conflict of interest, which was not adjudicated in this excerpt.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 24 days in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The appeal was admitted for hearing on its merits.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings regarding the variation in agricultural receipts but directed the AO to accept agricultural income up to Rs. 32 Lacs, considering it was accepted in the preceding year.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its claim for deduction. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the separate benchmarking of management services under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was justified. The assessee's aggregation approach using TNMM was not appropriate as the transactions were not closely linked. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the receipt and benefit of the management services. Invoices alone were not considered conclusive proof. The Tribunal noted that the management personnel provided by the AE were receiving separate compensation, and the email correspondences submitted by the assessee pertained to a different financial year. Therefore, the lower authorities were justified in determining the ALP of these services as 'Nil' under the CUP method. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Akzo Noble India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, which was upheld by the Delhi High Court, finding it squarely applicable. The argument regarding Service Tax payment was deemed irrelevant for determining the ALP of international transactions. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not provide cogent reasons to reject the assessee's claim of agricultural income. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted a further source of Rs. 5 Lacs and sustained the remaining addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order could not be sustained as there was no discussion on the merits of the issue. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer also had not considered the evidence properly.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary details and evidence to the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue of LTCG computation was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to substantiate its claims and the AO to refer to DVO if needed.
The tribunal held that the estimated addition on stock was unsustainable as it was based on a survey statement and the survey team failed to consider stock at another premises. The addition on scrap income was also deemed unsustainable as the assessee was only a trader.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed fresh evidence (purchase ledger and cash book) to explain the source of the deposits. The Tribunal decided that these evidences require verification by the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, relying on the decisions of the Madras High Court and Delhi High Court. It was held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when no exempt income is earned.