Loading ITAT cases…
645 orders · Page 3 of 13
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority must decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them in limine for non-prosecution, even if the assessee fails to appear. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to dispose of the condonation petition for AY 2018-19. For AY 2019-20, it was held that the revised return filed within the due date substitutes the original return, and Form-10 filed before the revised return should be considered timely. The CIT(A) was not correct in rejecting the exemption.
The Tribunal held that NSPL's role was that of an intermediary procuring and selling VoIP network services, and the process was fully automated with no human intervention, thus not constituting 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS). Therefore, the payment to NSPL was not taxable in India, and the assessee was not liable to deduct tax.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the recipient, and therefore, were not taxable as FTS under the India-UK DTAA. Reimbursements without any profit element were also not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the recipient, and therefore, were not taxable as FTS under the India-UK DTAA. Reimbursements without any profit element were also not taxable in India.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's GP ratio and previous orders of coordinate benches, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition on alleged bogus purchases to 5% over and above the assessee's disclosed GP rate.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing and use the correct email address provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed offered the income of Rs. 9,07,48,926 to tax twice, once as unbilled revenue in earlier years and again upon raising invoices in the year under consideration. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to a reduction of this amount.
The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained and was therefore deleted. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 508 days, holding that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for deciding the grounds on merits, granting the Assessee one last opportunity.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek revival if the declarations under the VSVS Scheme are not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the P&L account found during the survey was incomplete due to 'suspense' entries and could not be relied upon for making additions. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the pharmacy and chemist shop activities were integral and ancillary to the dominant purpose of running the hospital. It was also noted that the assessee had complied with the conditions of Section 11(4A) by maintaining separate books of account for these activities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwaas Scheme. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the settlement application did not result in dispute resolution.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek revival if the declarations under the VSVS Scheme are not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot invoke Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A without recording specific satisfaction that the assessee's suo moto disallowance was incorrect. Regarding Section 115JB, the Tribunal ruled that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be superimposed, and only actual expenses debited to the P&L account related to exempt income should be added back.
The Tribunal held that the first and second provisos to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act are applicable. The date of the allotment letter, along with part payment made then, should be considered as the agreement date for determining stamp duty value, not the registration date.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 was an omnibus notice without striking off the irrelevant portions, thus vitiating the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Mohammed Farhan A Shaikh.
The Tribunal held that the impugned transactions were not genuine purchases but accommodation entries. It directed the AO to estimate the profit from these non-genuine purchases at 2.5% for both assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was on account of a reasonable and bonafide cause. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the pharmacy and chemist shop activities were integral and ancillary to the dominant purpose of running the hospital. It was also noted that the assessee had complied with the conditions of Section 11(4A) by maintaining separate books of account for these activities.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was on account of a reasonable and bonafide cause. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was on account of a reasonable and bonafide cause. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeals are allowed. Regarding the denial of exemption under Section 11 for the Pharmacy Division and Chemist Shop, the Tribunal found that these activities were essential and incidental or ancillary to the dominant object of running the hospital. The Tribunal noted that medicines are crucial for patient care, especially for in-house patients, and that outpatients and outsiders are also at liberty to purchase medicines. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circulars and judicial precedents, including the case of Baun Foundation, to support its view that such facilities, even if used by the general public, are considered ancillary if predominantly intended for patients and their relatives. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee complied with the twin conditions of Section 11(4A) by maintaining separate books of account for the pharmacy store and that the income from these activities is not to be treated as business income from a separate and independent activity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made on account of pharmacy income. The issue regarding the validity of reassessment and denial of an opportunity of hearing were not explicitly decided in the operative part of the judgment, but the substantive issue concerning the denial of exemption was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, finding that the incorrect selection was an unintentional mistake. It directed the CIT(E) to either treat the application as filed under the correct Sub-Clause (iii) or grant the assessee an opportunity to file a rectified application, and thereafter decide the application on its merits within four weeks.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from Business Support Services (BSS) were not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS). It relied on a co-ordinate bench decision for AY 2009-10, which held that BSS provided under a Cost Contribution Agreement (CCA) on a cost-to-cost basis without markup were in the nature of cost recharge and not income. The Tribunal noted that the AO and DRP had relied on an Advance Ruling (AAR) in the case of SIMPL, but the co-ordinate bench had found that the AAR ruling was not binding on the assessee in its own assessment proceedings. Therefore, the addition made by the AO towards BSS was deleted. Regarding receipts for access to SUN and GSAP software (maintenance, license, and Go-Live charges), the Tribunal held that these did not constitute Royalty under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal reasoned that the payments were for the right to use copyrighted software, not for the use of the copyright itself. It emphasized that as per Section 90(2) of the Act, the DTAA provisions, being more beneficial, should apply. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis (supra), stating that if the DTAA definition of Royalty is more beneficial, it must be applied. Since the payments were on a cost-to-cost basis without any income element, they were not taxable in India. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted. The additional ground regarding limitation was not pressed by the assessee and hence not admitted. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was consequential and did not require separate adjudication. The appeals were partly allowed. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not decided.
Based on the AO's positive remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 68. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the decision, as the AO had already accepted the genuineness of the loans in the remand proceedings. Consequently, the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was on account of a reasonable and bonafide cause. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from General Business Support Services (BSS) do not constitute income in the hands of the assessee. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision for AY 2009-10, which found that BSS costs were allocated on a cost-to-cost basis without mark-up and were in the nature of reimbursement, the Tribunal concluded that these receipts were not taxable in India. The AO's reliance on the AAR ruling was not considered binding on the assessee. Regarding receipts for access to SUN and GSAP software (maintenance, license, and Go-Live charges), the Tribunal held that these do not qualify as Royalty under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. The reasoning was that the payments were for the right to use the software, not for the right to use the copyright. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court decision in Engineering Analysis, stating that if the DTAA definition of Royalty is more beneficial, it should be applied as per Section 90(2) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that these receipts were on a cost-to-cost basis without any income element. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were not tenable. Grounds related to interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were deemed consequential. The issues of TDS credit and penalty under section 271(1)(c) were not explicitly decided, with some grounds left open in view of the decision on the primary issues.
The Tribunal held that the additions made for alleged cash loans lent and interest earned cannot be sustained. For AY 2011-12, the reasons recorded for reopening under section 147 contained several factual inaccuracies regarding the assessee's return filing date, declared income, and assessed income. Furthermore, the alleged cash loan of Rs 30,00,000/- was found to pertain to AY 2010-11, not AY 2011-12. For AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19, the Tribunal found that the seized documents from Evergreen Enterprises, which formed the basis of the additions, did not contain the assessee's name or a verifiable code pertaining to him. The name mentioned was 'S.M. Joglekar', and it was not established that this referred to the assessee, Mahesh N. Joglekar. The Tribunal concluded that since the amounts assessed did not pertain to the assessee, the additions made on account of alleged cash loans and interest could not be sustained. Consequently, all additions for AYs 2012-13 to 2018-19 were deleted on this ground alone. Other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic. The operative direction was the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that receipts from General Business Support Services (BSS) do not constitute income chargeable to tax in India. It relied on a co-ordinate bench decision for AY 2009-10, which found that BSS costs were allocated on a cost-to-cost basis without markup, essentially reimbursements. The Tribunal further held that receipts towards access to GSAP software, including license and Go-Live charges, do not constitute royalty under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA. The reasoning was that the payments were for the right to use copyrighted software, not for the use of copyright itself. The Tribunal emphasized that the DTAA's definition of royalty, which is more beneficial to the assessee, should be applied as per Section 90(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis (supra) was followed. Consequently, additions made by the AO for BSS and GSAP were not tenable. Issues related to SUN software were not explicitly detailed in the provided extract but were implied to be covered by the GSAP decision. Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were held to be consequential. The appeals for AY 2012-13 to AY 2015-16 were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust was not engaged in the business of publishing, printing, and subscription as it was incidental to the main object of spreading the message of Rev Dada. Following a Co-ordinate Bench decision and the Supreme Court's ruling in the Sai Publication Fund case, the Tribunal found that the activity was not a business activity.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the TPO/AO regarding the markup on reimbursement of expenses was not warranted, following its own previous decisions. Regarding interest under Sections 234A and 234B, the AO was directed to verify and compute it considering the extended due dates due to COVID-19.
The Tribunal held that the impugned quarrel had been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2015-16 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Respectfully following that decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The reasoning was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Sai Publication Fund, which held that publication and distribution of books containing religious preachings, when incidental or ancillary to the main charitable object of spreading a message, do not constitute 'business' unless an independent intention to carry on business is established. The onus was on the Revenue to prove that the assessee was 'carrying on business'. The Tribunal found that the dominant purpose of the assessee was to spread a message based on preachings, which was held not to be a business activity. Earning of profit per se was not the sole criterion for determining if an activity was commercial. Therefore, the assessee trust was not engaged in the business of publishing, printing, and subscription as it was not its main object. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 2441/Mum/2023, dated 30/01/2024), dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Co-ordinate Bench, in its decision, had held that the assessee trust was engaged in imparting education by printing books and publications related to spiritual discourses, which it claimed to be part of its charitable activity. The Tribunal noted that the primary object of the trust was to spread its message, and the publication activity was incidental to this main object, not a business activity. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sai Publication Fund, which held that publication and distribution of books containing religious preachings, when incidental to the main charitable object and without profit motive, do not constitute business. The onus was on the Revenue to prove that the assessee was carrying on business. The Tribunal concluded that the dominant purpose was to spread the message, and the publication was not a business activity. Therefore, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwaas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to revive it if the settlement application did not resolve the dispute.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the Departmental Representative did not oppose the prayer.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not be compelled to produce an approval certificate it did not possess. It was observed that the lapse appeared to be on the part of the revenue, considering the assessee's consistent follow-ups. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of FTS on an accrual basis is covered by a coordinate bench decision in Siemens AG's case, which ruled in favour of the assessee. It was also held that the assessee and Siemens Limited do not constitute an Association of Persons (AOP).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the issue is debatable and two views are possible. Given that the assessee's appeal on the quantum assessment was admitted by the High Court on a substantial question of law, it indicated an arguable point. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the additions made in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained as the seized documents did not clearly identify the assessee, and the amounts assessed did not pertain to him. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not be compelled to produce an approval certificate it did not possess. It was observed that the lapse appeared to be on the part of the revenue, considering the assessee's consistent follow-ups. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and in the interest of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one final opportunity. The appeal was remitted back to the PCIT to re-examine the issues afresh, considering the details provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the additions made in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained as the seized documents did not clearly identify the assessee, and the amounts assessed did not pertain to him. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the additions made in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained as the seized documents did not clearly identify the assessee, and the amounts assessed did not pertain to him. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the impugned transactions were not genuine purchases but accommodation entries. It directed the AO to estimate the profit from these non-genuine purchases at 2.5% for both assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the additions made in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained as the seized documents did not clearly identify the assessee, and the amounts assessed did not pertain to him. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to dispose of the condonation petition for AY 2018-19. For AY 2019-20, it was held that the revised return filed within the due date substitutes the original return, and Form-10 filed before the revised return should be considered timely. The CIT(A) was not correct in rejecting the exemption.