Loading ITAT cases…
158 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) himself acknowledged payments were made during assessment. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the payments and allow the claim if found correct.
The Tribunal acknowledged the principle laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Hardyal Charitable and Educational Trust vs. Commissioner of Income-II, which states that registration under Section 12AA cannot be refused solely on the ground that the trust has not commenced charitable or religious activities. The Court held that at the stage of registration, the Commissioner should primarily examine the genuineness of the objects, not the activities, unless they have commenced. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed to be in the process of establishing an educational institution, its registration documents indicated the society was established prior to 2009. Crucially, the assessee failed to provide details of its activities from its inception until the application for registration, including information on its members, funds received, and utilization towards charitable activities. Since the CIT had not examined all these details, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order. The case was remanded to the CIT for a fresh decision after verifying the objects and genuineness of activities in accordance with the law, based on the documents the assessee is required to submit. The assessee was to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot be made to the income computed under Section 115JB (MAT provisions). Such adjustments are not among the permissible modifications listed in Explanation I to Section 115JB(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the payment for procuring export orders cannot be termed as fees for technical services. Regarding bad debts, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of documentary evidence. Other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the comparable set due to functional dissimilarity and ordered the TPO to re-evaluate the margins based on provided charts and safe harbor rules. It also directed proper credit for TDS.
The ITAT found that the CIT(E) did not take a holistic view of the society's objects and submissions, and failed to inquire into the genuineness of the objects. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-consider the application.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in adopting the sale consideration as per the sale deed, especially since the assessee failed to provide evidence of fraud or misappropriation. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of the claimed loss on sale of shares.
The Tribunal held that the payment for software licenses did not constitute royalty, following the Delhi High Court's decision in DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. Therefore, the disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS on software license payments was directed to be deleted.