Loading ITAT cases…
375 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal found that the GST refund of Rs. 72,37,848/- was inadvertently reported in the tax audit report and is not revenue. Therefore, it cannot be brought to tax.
The Tribunal held that the income from foreign branches is taxable in India. This decision is based on legislative developments that overruled the Supreme Court's decision in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar's case and is covered by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the provision for customer loyalty programs was based on a scientific method and allowed the claim. It also ruled that UPS is an integral part of computers and eligible for 60% depreciation, directing the AO to allow the claim.
The Tribunal held that the provision for customer loyalty programs was based on a scientific method and allowed the claim. It also ruled that UPS is an integral part of computers and eligible for 60% depreciation, directing the AO to allow the claim.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's contentions and provide adequate opportunity. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated without proper satisfaction and that the assessee failed to demonstrate a genuine and bonafide reason for not receiving the payment through account payee cheque or demand draft. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) admitted new evidence in violation of rules.
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 found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the expenses. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification of income offered by one of the recipients.
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 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 set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo assessment. The AO was directed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to present all relevant documents and submissions.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock, offered as income by the assessee and not disproved by the revenue as originating from business, should be treated as normal business income. The software used for internal stock records was not considered statutory books of accounts.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo assessment. This was done to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate their case, considering the ex-parte assessment and principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the omission to approve the audit report was a procedural irregularity and not fatal, especially since the assessee had substantially complied with the requirements and cured the defect promptly. The matter was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of registration due to a bona fide, inadvertent mistake in the online form is not sustainable. The CIT(E) was directed to consider a physical form of Form 10AB with the correct nature of activity.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated without proper satisfaction and that the assessee failed to demonstrate a genuine and bonafide reason for not receiving the payment through account payee cheque or demand draft. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) admitted new evidence in violation of rules.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the CIT(A)'s order, granted the assessee a fresh opportunity to substantiate the cash deposit issue before the AO, subject to a cost. The issue of purchase difference was partly allowed by the CIT(A) and notional interest was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficiently specific findings on several legal grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on these limited legal issues.
The Tribunal held that the provision for customer loyalty programs was based on a scientific method and allowed the claim. It also ruled that UPS is an integral part of computers and eligible for 60% depreciation, directing the AO to allow the claim.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before the Chennai Bench due to lack of jurisdiction. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal before the Mumbai Bench with a condonation of delay petition.
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, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case with documentary evidence. Both appeals were restored for de novo adjudication.
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, while noting the assessee's negligence and absence during the hearing, restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was done to uphold the principle of natural justice and provide another opportunity to the assessee.
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 held that the penalty notice was defective and invalid because it failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory, following a coordinate bench decision and a Madras High Court ruling. Therefore, the denial of Foreign Tax Credit was incorrect.
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 held that the penalty notice was defective and invalid because it failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty levied was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 44AD was not applicable as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limits. Citing a High Court judgment on similar facts, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the income estimation at 5% of contract receipts.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory, following a coordinate bench decision and a Madras High Court ruling. Therefore, the denial of Foreign Tax Credit was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that filing of the audit report is directory and not mandatory. Since the report was filed before the processing of the return, the deduction should be allowed, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the AO on account of non-production of bills and vouchers for advertisement, garden, office, repairs, and vehicle expenses. Other grounds of appeal were also dismissed.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to re-examine the peak credit method, verifying the assessee's working and ensuring that cheque entries are included only if their origin and return can be properly explained by the assessee.
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.
The Tribunal held that the income from foreign branches is taxable in India. This decision is based on legislative developments that overruled the Supreme Court's decision in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar's case and is covered by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which accepted the assessee's contention. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to delete the addition after considering the remand report, which confirmed that the receipts were disclosed in the AOP's return, thus avoiding double taxation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the expenses claimed by the assessee and rejected the rectification petition without proper consideration. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
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 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 Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80IC. It relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case which had already adjudicated similar issues in favour of the assessee.
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 Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear, set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo assessment. This was done to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case, subject to a cost.
The Tribunal held that Section 44AD was not applicable as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limits. Citing a High Court judgment on similar facts, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the income estimation at 5% of contract receipts.
The Tribunal held that the income from foreign branches is taxable in India. This decision is based on legislative developments that overruled the Supreme Court's decision in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar's case and is covered by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal found the mistake to be bona fide and granted the assessee another opportunity. The appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) entered into by the assessee with the CBDT is valid for AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19, and all four appeals fall under its purview. The APA clearly lays down the scheme of working to be followed by the assessee, and the assessee has reported its financial transactions in complete fulfillment of these stipulations. Therefore, there was no case for any adjustment to be made by the TPO or for the DRP to reiterate the TPO's actions. The addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was in conflict with the agreements in the APA and consequently deserved to be quashed and set aside. The addition made by the AO was deleted, and the ground of appeal was allowed. For the subsequent AYs (2015-16, 2017-18, and 2018-19), the facts and arguments were identical, and following the decision for AY 2014-15, the additions were also deleted and the grounds of appeal allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the income from foreign branches is taxable in India. This decision is based on legislative developments that overruled the Supreme Court's decision in PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar's case and is covered by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not considered the assessee's written submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of hearing.