ITAT Chennai Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for such applications. Considering this development, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-apply.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order. It directed the CIT(Exemption) to reconsider the assessee's application for registration, giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for such applications. Considering this development and in the interest of justice, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-apply.

The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for filing such applications. Considering this development and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to re-approach the CIT(E) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the payments were in the nature of commission and reimbursement of expenses to an agent without a Permanent Establishment in India. Therefore, as per the India-Indonesia DTAA, the income was not taxable in India, and TDS under Section 195 was not applicable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to make full compliance with the notices issued by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo assessment, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present its case and evidence. The assessee was directed to ensure complete compliance with the AO's notices.

The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for filing such applications. Considering this development, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-approach the CIT(E).

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It held that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a natural right and the assessee should be given a chance to present its case.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo assessment, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present its case and evidence. This was due to the assessee's assurance of full compliance and the principle that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a natural right.

The CIT(A) rightly restricted the addition to 3.28% of the total bogus purchases, representing the net profit, based on case law. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT Circular extending the due date for filing such applications. Considering this development and in the interest of justice, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-approach the CIT(E) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the payments were in the nature of commission and reimbursement of expenses to an agent without a Permanent Establishment in India. Therefore, as per the India-Indonesia DTAA, the income was not taxable in India, and TDS under Section 195 was not applicable.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to make full compliance with the notices issued by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee did not receive the departmental notices. It directed the CIT(Exemption) to reconsider the assessee's application for registration under Section 80G.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply with the first appellate authority and the subsequent ex-parte order. However, considering the need for verification of evidence regarding unexplained investments, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT Circular extending the due date for filing such applications. Considering this development and in the interest of justice, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-approach the CIT(E).

The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the filing deadline to June 30, 2024. Considering this development, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-approach the CIT(E) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to invoke Section 153C for AY 2014-15 as the seized material did not establish a co-relation with that assessment year. Consequently, the assessment order and subsequent rectification order were deemed null and void.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the correct amount of product development expenses amortization. It also directed the exclusion of certain high-turnover companies as comparables, while upholding the inclusion of others.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present their case and evidence. The assessee assured full compliance with future notices.

The provided text is only the introductory part of the ITAT order, stating the background of the appeal. It indicates that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(Appeal)/NFAC. The final decision or ruling of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on the merits of the appeal is not contained within this excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the time limit for filing applications in Form 10AB under Section 80G(5)(iii) should be treated as directory and not mandatory. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the application on merits.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 27.03.2021 for AY 2013-14 was barred by limitation as per Section 149 of the substituted Act of 2021. Consequently, the re-opening of assessment was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the payments were in the nature of commission and reimbursement of expenses to an agent without a Permanent Establishment in India. Therefore, as per the India-Indonesia DTAA, the income was not taxable in India, and TDS under Section 195 was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the jurisdiction to invoke Section 153C for AY 2014-15 as the seized material did not establish a co-relation with that assessment year. Consequently, the assessment order and subsequent rectification order were deemed null and void.

The Tribunal held that since the cash sales were reflected in the assessee's books of accounts and offered to tax, adding the same again would amount to double taxation. The assessee had discharged the burden of proving the source of the cash deposit with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the inadvertent mistake should not deny the assessee its rightful registration for five years. The application was to be treated as if it was filed under the correct sub-clause.

The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for filing such applications. In the interest of justice, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-approach the CIT(E) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on the abandoned software development was revenue in nature and allowable as a deduction. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to overseas commission and bad debts, following its own precedents. However, it upheld the AO's disallowance of higher depreciation on software, citing a High Court decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to make full compliance with the notices issued by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the application. The assessee was given an opportunity to amend its trust deed, and the CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the registration application afresh.

The Tribunal held that delivery charges were for hiring goods carriages, allowing cash payments up to Rs. 35,000. It also deleted the addition under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing audited accounts and evidence of a deposit for dealership which was later adjusted.

The Tribunal held that the software license subscription fees are not royalty and the annual maintenance service fees are not fees for included services, following its own previous decisions and Supreme Court rulings. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO to reopen the assessment for AY 2014-15 was barred by limitation under Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the assessee succeeded on this legal issue.

The Tribunal held that the payments were pure reimbursements of actual costs like relocation and insurance, not income in the hands of the recipient entities. Therefore, TDS was not required on these reimbursements.

The Tribunal held that the payments were pure reimbursements of actual costs like relocation and insurance, not income in the hands of the recipient entities. Therefore, TDS was not required on these reimbursements.

The Tribunal held that since the reassessment was initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the reopening was bad in law. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous, as the assessee had filed a return of income. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from another Co-operative Society/Bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal disagreed with the Ld.CIT(A)'s reasoning, noting that the CPC's initial disallowance was based on inadequate disclosure, not on the eligibility of the income itself. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 80P is a benevolent provision and should be read liberally. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Others v. CIT, the Tribunal stated that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is available for income from investments with any other co-operative society, unless the co-operative bank possesses a license from the RBI to do banking business with the public. Since the revenue did not establish that the co-operative societies/banks from which the assessee earned interest possessed such RBI licenses, the disallowance was not upheld. The Tribunal also noted that similar deductions were allowed in earlier years. Therefore, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction of Rs. 72,45,803/- claimed by the assessee under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the AO and DRP erred in invoking Section 44B and Article 24 of the India-Singapore DTAA to tax the freight income. The Tribunal concurred with the view of coordinate benches and High Court decisions, stating that in terms of Article 8 of the India-Singapore DTAA, the global income of a tax resident of Singapore from shipping operations, even if earned outside Singapore, is taxable only in Singapore on an accrual basis. Consequently, Article 24 of the DTAA ought not to have been invoked to deny the DTAA exemption merely because the income was not taxed in Singapore due to separate exemptions under Singapore's Income Tax Act. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made towards the shipping income earned by the assessee in India. The issue of actual tax paid in Singapore was not decided as it was not a ground for refusal by the lower authorities and lacked factual and legal foundation before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 18.05.2023 was indeed barred by limitation under section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The DRP's directions were received on 01.12.2022, and the AO was mandated to pass the final order by 31.01.2023. The Tribunal found no evidence to controvert the timeline of service of DRP's directions upon the AO. The statutory stipulation in section 144C(13) does not differentiate between regular assessments and set-aside assessments regarding timelines. The argument that the TPO giving effect to the DRP's directions on 18.02.2022 extended the timeline was found legally unsustainable. The Tribunal relied on the decision in M/s. Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd. and held that the order passed by the AO was void ab initio and liable to be quashed as time-barred. Grounds of appeal challenging the procedural irregularities and limitation were allowed. The ground regarding non-conformity to timelines under section 153(3) became infructuous. Grounds on merits were not adjudicated as they were not argued. The matter regarding credit for taxes paid was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for the omission of the ITP and that a proper opportunity of being heard was not provided. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal addressed three grounds of appeal. Firstly, regarding R&D fees, the Tribunal noted the assessee's reliance on the Cost Allocation Agreement (CAA) and the adverse ruling from the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) dated March 22, 2012, which held the payment as royalty. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's writ petition against the AAR ruling was pending before the Madras High Court. The Tribunal, however, did not make a specific finding on this issue, stating that the DRP's observations were extracted and the judgment was incomplete. Secondly, concerning the buy-back of shares, the Tribunal upheld the AO's action, confirming the addition as long-term capital gains. The Tribunal noted the assessee's concession that it did not succeed before the AAR and was awaiting the High Court's verdict. The Tribunal found the AAR ruling binding on the AO. Therefore, ground of appeal number 2 was dismissed. Thirdly, regarding the attribution of income to a PE, the Tribunal heard rival submissions. The assessee argued that the addition included long-term capital gains already taxed, reimbursement of expenses, and fees for technical services offered to tax. The Tribunal, considering the ends of justice, set aside the issue to the AO for reconsideration, allowing the ground of appeal partly for statistical purposes. The Revenue concurred with this view. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not provided specific findings on the assessee's detailed reply submitted during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to the assessee paying a nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- for each assessment year. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT found a violation of natural justice and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.