Loading ITAT cases…
317 orders · Page 7 of 7
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was to be computed considering only investments yielding exempt income. For connectivity charges, the Tribunal restored the disallowance made by the AO, relying on its own earlier decision. The disallowance for delayed deposit of employee PF/ESI contributions was also restored, following the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the loose sheets, being an image from a mobile phone, constituted secondary evidence. The CIT(A) correctly noted that these sheets lacked essential elements like actual consideration and required corroboration, which was not sufficiently provided by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the loose sheets, being secondary evidence, require corroboration. The assessee's retraction without substantiating evidence was not accepted, and the difference between the sale deed value and the loose sheet value was considered unexplained investment.
The Tribunal held that the image alone was insufficient to prove the payment of on-money. The assessee's explanation, supported by seller confirmations and the non-editable nature of the image, was considered plausible, shifting the onus to the AO, which was not discharged.
The Tribunal held that the onus was on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the loan creditors, and the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence. The argument that transactions were through banking channels was rejected as Section 68 is attracted regardless of the mode of transaction.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to the AO for verification of Form 26A. For additions u/s 69, the disallowance related to SVD was deleted, while the issue concerning LIL was restored to the AO. The disallowance of interest for advances to suppliers u/s 36(1)(iii) was deleted, and the disallowance of proportionate interest on loans was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was to be computed considering only investments yielding exempt income. For connectivity charges, the Tribunal restored the disallowance made by the AO, relying on its own earlier decision. The disallowance for delayed deposit of employee PF/ESI contributions was also restored, following the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the image alone was insufficient to prove the payment of on-money. The assessee's explanation, supported by seller confirmations and the non-editable nature of the image, was considered plausible, shifting the onus to the AO, which was not discharged.
The Tribunal noted that the onus to establish the source of cash deposits was on the assessee, which they failed to do. However, considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal acknowledged that a ticketing agent's margins are typically low. Considering past returns, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the income at 2% of the deposit, which would be in addition to the returned income.
The Tribunal addressed the issues as follows: Regarding **Transfer Pricing Adjustment**, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument for using multiple years' data, stating that comparability must be based on contemporaneous data. The Tribunal accepted the inclusion of M/s Automotive Stamping Assemblies Ltd. as a comparable entity, directing the AO/TPO to accept it, following a similar decision for AY 2013-14. The issue of M/s Jamna Auto Industries Ltd. was restored to the AO/TPO for substantiation by the assessee, as no finding was rendered by lower authorities. The Tribunal rejected the exclusion of M/s ATS Elgi Ltd., M/s JBM Auto Systems Pvt. Ltd., and M/s MK Autocomponents Ltd. based solely on public domain product information, stating that TNMM requires broad comparability and that the business model appeared similar. The argument that forex losses were non-operating was rejected, as these losses had a direct linkage to the assessee's international transactions. The issue of entity-level adjustment was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case, as the assessee was unable to provide separate data before the lower authorities, despite agreeing that adjustments should be made only with respect to AE transactions. Regarding **Disallowance under Section 43A**, the Tribunal noted that this issue was restored to the AO for fresh consideration in AY 2013-14 due to the assessee's failure to provide requisite details. As the facts are similar, the Tribunal gave similar directions for the current year, restoring the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case. The corresponding grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. The operative directions were to restore certain aspects of the transfer pricing adjustment and the disallowance under Section 43A to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to provide substantiation. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the transfer pricing issue concerning the imputation of interest on outstanding trade receivables. The Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2012, inserted an Explanation to Section 92B, which includes 'any other debt arising during the course of business' as an international transaction. However, the Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court order dated 21.07.2017, which dismissed a Special Leave Petition on a similar issue concerning adjustment for interest on receivables, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal also considered the decision in Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that no transfer pricing adjustment for imputing interest cost on outstanding trade receivables is needed for a debt-free company. Following the Supreme Court's order and the Bechtel India decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,14,15,287/-. Consequently, Ground No. 2 and its sub-grounds were allowed, and the remaining grounds were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal addressed each ground raised by the assessee concerning the transfer pricing adjustment. Regarding the rejection of M/s Automotive Stamping Assemblies Ltd. as a comparable, the Tribunal upheld its rejection as it had incurred losses in three consecutive years. For M/s Jamna Auto Industries Ltd., the issue was restored to the AO/TPO for AY 2014-15, with a direction for the assessee to substantiate its inclusion. Similar directions were issued for the current year. Concerning the exclusion of M/s ATS Elgi Ltd. and M/s JBM Auto Systems Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal accepted their inclusion, following its decision in AY 2014-15. The exclusion of M/s Badve Engineering Ltd. was not justified by the assessee. The exclusion of M/s NRB Bearing Ltd. was rejected as the DRP noted its R&D expenditure was only 1.02% of turnover, and no significant product line dissimilarity was shown. Similarly, no functional dissimilarity was shown for M/s Talbros Engineering. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had been negligent but, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant another opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. The transfer pricing adjustment issue concerning one comparable entity was restored to the AO/TPO for re-adjudication. The disallowance under Section 43A was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case. The claim for additional depreciation was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings were not time-barred due to the amendment to Section 201(3) providing an extended time limit of 7 years. The Tribunal also concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision that the demand raised was justified.