Loading ITAT cases…
335 orders · Page 7 of 7
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation loss should be considered a non-operating expense. The reasoning was based on the fact that such losses arise from finance transactions, such as borrowings for working capital, and are akin to finance costs. The Tribunal found persuasive value in the Safe Harbour Rules, which explicitly exclude foreign exchange fluctuation loss from operating expenses, and referred to the decision in DCIT vs Hanil Tube India, which directed the exclusion of foreign exchange fluctuation loss from operating expenses. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO)/TPO to consider the foreign exchange fluctuation loss as non-operating and exclude it while computing the operating margin of the assessee. The AO/TPO was instructed to recompute the operating margin and pass a speaking order. Consequently, since the assessee's operating margin was expected to be higher than the comparables after this exclusion, the transfer pricing adjustment would stand vacated. Other grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 4,52,59,459/-. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a debt-free company with its own funds of Rs. 482 crores. It respectfully followed its own decision in the assessee's own case for the earlier Assessment Year 2020-21, where a similar adjustment was deleted. The Tribunal found that no transfer pricing adjustment was warranted by imputing interest cost for outstanding trade receivables from AEs in such a scenario. The Revenue could not point out any changes in facts or law to differentiate the current year from the previous year. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., which dismissed the SLP on a similar issue, holding that no substantial question of law arose. Other grounds raised against TP adjustments were considered academic and left open. The issue of interest u/s. 234C was directed to be verified by the AO after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of scientific expenditure was erroneous as it was revenue in nature and should have been allowed under Section 37. The issue regarding customs duty reimbursement was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied legitimate deductions and should be taxed only on net income, even if treated as an AOP. The decision followed a precedent set by the Hon'ble Madras High Court.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the CIT(A) to await the decision of the competent authority on the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's circumstances and the lack of wilful default. It noted that the AO's order was not speaking and lacked proper enquiries, and the CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity. The matter was set aside and remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to a previous case (Mylapore Fine Arts Club) where relief was granted. It held that organizing cultural activities for the advancement of general public utility qualifies for Section 80G registration.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's age and the nascent stage of the transition to faceless assessment, along with the fact that notices were sent to the auditor's email. It concluded that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-response to the notices, and consequently, deleted the penalty of Rs. 20,000 levied under Section 272A(1)(d).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of notices during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the AO for denovo assessment, providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had jurisdiction to revise the assessment order regarding income from house property and other sources, as these were not part of the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A). The AO's order was found erroneous for not properly considering these income heads.
The ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal as non-admissible. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s action, as the assessee failed to comply with the mandatory pre-condition of Section 249(4) (payment of tax on returned income) and did not adhere to the High Court's order for payment of 25% of the disputed tax, despite multiple opportunities.
The Tribunal noted that Section 156A, introduced by the Finance Act 2022, allows the Assessing Officer to modify demand orders in conformity with the orders of the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to take necessary action under Section 156A.
The Tribunal held that to meet the ends of justice, the appeals should be remanded back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to ensure full compliance with statutory notices.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide bills or vouchers for cash purchases from unregistered dealers, and the director admitted to manual invoices and cash payments during the search. Therefore, the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was found to be without infirmity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay for the belated filing of Form 10. Relying on a coordinate bench decision and a High Court ruling, the Tribunal held that gross receipts cannot be taxed without allowing corresponding expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the deposited cash as their cash-on-hand as of November 8, 2016, supported by the cash book and audited accounts. The AO's doubt based solely on the timing of the deposit was not sufficient to disallow the claim.
The Tribunal noted that Section 156A, introduced by the Finance Act 2022, allows the Assessing Officer to modify demand orders in conformity with the orders of the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to take necessary action under Section 156A.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the CIT(A) to await the decision of the competent authority on the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that to meet the ends of justice, the appeals should be remanded back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to ensure full compliance with statutory notices.
The Tribunal held that to meet the ends of justice, the appeals should be remanded back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to ensure full compliance with statutory notices.
The Tribunal held that to meet the ends of justice, the appeals should be remanded back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to ensure full compliance with statutory notices.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeals to avail the DTVSV scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted for restoration if the DTVSV resolution failed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeals to avail the DTVSV scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted for restoration if the DTVSV resolution failed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions. The assessee had provided plausible explanations and evidence for cash withdrawals, the sale deed supported the consideration received, and the sundry creditors were explained by audited financial statements.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeals to avail the DTVSV scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted for restoration if the DTVSV resolution failed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeals to avail the DTVSV scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted for restoration if the DTVSV resolution failed.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for the study, which was written off as the project was abandoned, was neither capital expenditure nor an unascertained liability. The assessee had added it back to book profits as a diminution in the value of investments, not because it was an unascertained liability.
The Tribunal held that for the PCIT to assume jurisdiction under Section 263, two conditions must be met: the AO's order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. In this case, the AO had already made a finding that the income was included, thus the twin conditions were not satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) had not examined the accounts from the correct perspective and had erroneously confirmed the addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had reported the amounts not credited to the profit and loss account in Schedule OI and Form 3CD, including Rs.25,00,000/- as consideration from the sale of agricultural land. The assessee's explanation was that Form 3CD related only to the textile business, and the sale of agricultural land was exempt. The Tribunal found that the CPC made the adjustment based on the assessee's own report of amounts not credited to the P&L account. Reversing the order of the CIT(A), the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- made by the CPC. The issue of Rs.1,20,000/- from milk sales and Rs.23,440/- net agricultural income was not expressly decided, but the overall appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it. While acknowledging the assessee's default, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for de novo assessment, citing the principle of natural justice and the need for proper opportunity.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for de novo hearings, setting aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The assessee was granted another opportunity due to principles of natural justice, subject to a cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for the DTVSV scheme and accordingly treated the appeal as dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted for restoration if the scheme resolution failed.
The ITAT, considering the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices and upholding the principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded to the AO for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- costs to the 'Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority'.
Upholding the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing, providing the assessee with a fresh opportunity to present their case, conditional on depositing Rs.5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was based solely on a technical ground. It was held that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the mistake. The Ld.CIT(E) is directed to provide an opportunity to rectify the application and consider it on merits.