Loading ITAT cases…
591 orders · Page 5 of 12
The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The exclusionary provisions of Section 80P(4) are attracted only when the assessee itself is a co-operative bank.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The exclusionary provisions of Section 80P(4) are attracted only when the assessee itself is a co-operative bank.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was invalid. This was because the issue had already been addressed in the assessment order, and no error or prejudice to the revenue was found.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues regarding the ownership of bank accounts and the adjudication of deposits and withdrawals. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the appellant an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the addition was confirmed based on Form 26AS, and the assessee's contention was that TDS provisions are machinery ones. The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd., restored the matter to the AO to examine whether the income had truly accrued, emphasizing the principle of real income over hypothetical accrual.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass a necessary rectification order and grant relief if the appellant's contentions were found correct.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the PCIT was barred by limitation, as the issue sought to be revised emanated from the original assessment, not the reopened assessment. The limitation period for revision should be counted from the date of the original assessment order.
The Tribunal held that since the trust had not claimed the TDS credit and the assessee was the 100% beneficiary, the assessee was entitled to the credit. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the TDS credit.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. The application was allowed, and consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the statutory onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Revenue failed to provide any cogent material to impeach these documents.
The Tribunal held that the date of the agreement for sale, when it creates a legally enforceable right and is accompanied by substantial advance consideration, constitutes the date of transfer under Section 2(47) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 54.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the statutory onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Revenue failed to provide any cogent material to impeach these documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the statutory onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Revenue failed to provide any cogent material to impeach these documents.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment of Rs. 5,52,62,002 made by the TPO/AO/DRP on account of management consultancy services was unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including service agreements and cost allocation workings, to demonstrate that services were rendered and that the ALP was not Nil. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's 'Other Method' as the primary method for determining the arm's length nature of the mark-ups, supported by a corroborative TNMM analysis. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to accept the assessee's benchmarking framework and verify the same, noting that the TPO's determination of ALP at Nil was inconsistent with domestic law and international best practices. Consequently, the adjustment was deleted. Regarding the time-bar issue (Ground 2), the Tribunal did not explicitly rule on it but allowed other grounds. The issue of the assessment order being passed on the old PAN (Ground 4) was implicitly addressed by allowing the appeal on other grounds, suggesting the order's invalidity. The Tribunal also allowed Additional Grounds 12-13, stating that an alternate disallowance under Section 37 could not be made as it was not proposed in the draft assessment order and the DRP had directed it without issuing notice. The legal issue raised in Additional Ground 11 was kept open. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A were not discussed in detail but were implicitly set aside with the deletion of the primary addition.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the transfer pricing adjustment related to interest on CCDs. The assessee's reliance on a single comparable from foreign industrial yield data was found to be defective and not representative of Indian market lending conditions. The Tribunal noted that precedents like Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd. pertained to foreign-currency FCCDs or different commercial circumstances and did not establish a universal benchmark of SBI PLR + 300 basis points for INR-denominated CCD transactions. The Tribunal found the TPO's approach of using SBI PLR with a 75 basis point adjustment to be grounded in domestic financial realities and conforming to the arm's length principle. Therefore, the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Ld. AO/TPO was upheld, and the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings were set aside. Regarding the 'on money' receipts, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground. The assessee's cross-objections challenging the AO's jurisdiction were also dismissed, with the Tribunal holding that the pecuniary jurisdiction instruction is inapplicable in search and seizure cases. The Tribunal adjudicated all issues for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17.
The Tribunal decided the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction first. It held that CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, which deals with pecuniary jurisdiction for normal assessments, is inapplicable to assessments arising from search and seizure operations. Assessments following search and seizure are governed by specific instructions concerning centralization of such cases. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Chaudhury Skin Trading Company & Ors. v. PCIT & Ors. and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Kamlesh Rajnikant Shah v. PCIT, which held that transfer orders under Section 127 are administrative in nature and the concept of pecuniary jurisdiction under normal assessment instructions does not apply to search cases. Therefore, the Ld. AO had the jurisdiction to complete the assessment. The Tribunal did not decide the other issues related to Transfer Pricing adjustments and the addition of 'on money' receipts as the appeals were disposed of on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The operative direction was to restore the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that entries in the books of account are not conclusive in determining the nature of income, and therefore, did not find merit in the reliance placed by the DRP on such entries. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the principle that RPM is the most appropriate method for reseller transactions without value addition. However, the lower authorities were not satisfied with the segmental details furnished by the assessee. Since the assessee had filed additional evidence before the Tribunal to support its claim that proper segmental details were available and that RPM was the most appropriate method, and these details were not examined by the lower authorities, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh consideration after examining the additional evidence. Consequently, the impugned transfer pricing adjustment was set aside. The Tribunal also noted that since the matter was being restored to the AO/TPO, other grievances raised by the assessee did not require adjudication at that stage. Concise grounds of appeal nos. 5 and 6 were allowed for statistical purposes, as were the other grounds.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment under Section 147 were vague and lacked a vital link between the alleged material and the belief of escaped income. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was by a non-jurisdictional officer and thus void ab initio. The assessment order passed pursuant to such a notice is bad in law. The AO also failed to dispose of the assessee's objections regarding jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that a CBDT circular cannot impose conditions beyond what is stipulated in the Act or Rules. Since the payments were for the purchase of meat from producers, Rule 6DD(e)(ii) provided an exemption, and the addition was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's benchmarking for interest on CCDs was flawed and not supported by reliable comparables. It found the TPO's approach of using SBI PLR with a risk adjustment to be grounded in domestic financial realities and upheld the transfer pricing adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inference of collusion, pre-determined arrangement, or indirect benefit to third parties rested upon conjecture and suspicion, not legally admissible evidence. There was no material establishing any shareholding, managerial, financial, or proximate nexus between the assessee and GCSPL. The assessee's operations at the leased factory were substantial and genuine, reflected in audited financials. The lease arrangement was genuine, rent was paid or provided for, and all transactions were duly reflected in audited financial statements. The AO failed to establish any de-facto ownership, direct or oblique, between the assessee and GCSPL. The AO also did not demonstrate that the arrangement resulted in tax evasion or loss of revenue. Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and lease rent for premises used in manufacturing is a quintessential business outlay. The AO neither showed the expenditure to be capital nor established any colourable purpose. Suspicion cannot supplant proof. Therefore, the disallowance of lease rent could not be sustained. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 25,69,95,061/-. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inference of collusion, pre-determined arrangement, or indirect benefit to third parties rested upon conjecture and suspicion, not legally admissible evidence. There was no material establishing any shareholding, managerial, financial, or proximate nexus between the assessee and GCSPL. The assessee's operations at the leased factory were substantial and genuine, reflected in audited financials. The lease arrangement was genuine, rent was paid or provided for, and all transactions were duly reflected in audited financial statements. The AO failed to establish any de-facto ownership, direct or oblique, between the assessee and GCSPL. The AO also did not demonstrate that the arrangement resulted in tax evasion or loss of revenue. Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and lease rent for premises used in manufacturing is a quintessential business outlay. The AO neither showed the expenditure to be capital nor established any colourable purpose. Suspicion cannot supplant proof. Therefore, the disallowance of lease rent could not be sustained. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 25,69,95,061/-. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the payment was made to facilitate a settlement with the assessee's employees through the labour union. This expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee's business, establishing a necessary nexus and commercial expediency.
The Tribunal held that the acquisition of assets by GCSPL was through a public auction, and the lease agreement was valid. The lease rentals were considered a legitimate business expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, as per Section 37(1).
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was based on incorrect information and lack of independent verification by the AO. The assessee had held the shares since 1996, offered the sale proceeds as business income, and had not claimed any LTCG exemption. The evidence presented by the assessee regarding the purchase and sale of shares through banking channels was not disproven. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not prosecute the appeal diligently and did not provide any evidence for the purchases. The Tribunal relied on the admission of the assessee regarding hawala dealers and the decision in Kanak Impex, concluding that the purchases were bogus.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of lease rent expenditure. Regarding the survey findings, the Tribunal noted that while a survey was conducted, the AO's inferences were based on conjecture and suspicion, not legally admissible evidence. The lease rent expenditure was found to be a legitimate business outlay under Section 37(1), as the assessee was in continuous occupation and its business operations were undisputed. The conversion of outstanding rent of Rs. 26 crores into an unsecured loan was deemed acceptable as it was by mutual agreement, and interest was paid. The Power of Attorney granted by GCSPL to the assessee's directors was considered innocuous, facilitating operational finance, and the subsequent loans were used for business expansion, as evidenced by increased turnover and fixed assets. The Tribunal found no evidence of collusion, pre-determined arrangement, or indirect benefit to third parties. It was noted that no shareholding, managerial, financial, or proximate nexus was established between the assessee and GCSPL. The AO failed to demonstrate tax evasion or loss of revenue. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh computation of capital gains, granting the assessee an opportunity to present the necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inference of collusion, pre-determined arrangement, or indirect benefit to third parties rested upon conjecture and suspicion, not legally admissible evidence. There was no material establishing any shareholding, managerial, financial, or proximate nexus between the assessee and GCSPL. The assessee's operations at the leased factory were substantial and genuine, reflected in audited financials. The lease arrangement was genuine, rent was paid or provided for, and all transactions were duly reflected in audited financial statements. The AO failed to establish any de-facto ownership, direct or oblique, between the assessee and GCSPL. The AO also did not demonstrate that the arrangement resulted in tax evasion or loss of revenue. Section 37(1) permits deduction of expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and lease rent for premises used in manufacturing is a quintessential business outlay. The AO neither showed the expenditure to be capital nor established any colourable purpose. Suspicion cannot supplant proof. Therefore, the disallowance of lease rent could not be sustained. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 25,69,95,061/-. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted them. After considering the submissions and relying on a previous Third Member decision in Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., the Tribunal held that the price at which the assessee purchased power from the distribution licensee can be applied as a valid CUP for determining the ALP. The deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA should be allowed without downward adjustment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted them. After considering the submissions and relying on a previous Third Member decision in Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., the Tribunal held that the price at which the assessee purchased power from the distribution licensee can be applied as a valid CUP for determining the ALP. The deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA should be allowed without downward adjustment.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not considered relevant CBDT Circulars. The AO was directed to verify the addition based on demonetized cash, considering applicable circulars and allowing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the lower authorities. However, it decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, emphasizing adherence to the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and remanded back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication, considering that the quantum appeal was still pending. This was done to address the rejection of the appeal by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits in the partnership firm's account were already accounted for as sales in the proprietorship concern's books, and taxes had already been paid on this income. Re-taxing the same income in the hands of the partnership firm would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's (AO) inference of collusion, pre-determined arrangement, or indirect benefit to third parties was based on conjecture and suspicion, not legally admissible evidence. There was no material establishing any shareholding, managerial, financial, or proximate nexus between the assessee and GCSPL. The assessee's operations at the leased factory were substantial and genuine, reflected in audited financials. The lease arrangement was genuine, rent was paid or provided for, and all transactions were duly reflected in audited financial statements. The AO failed to establish any de-facto ownership between the assessee and GCSPL. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not demonstrated that the arrangement resulted in tax evasion or loss of revenue, with both entities declaring losses in several years. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof. Section 37(1) of the Act permits deduction of expenditure wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and lease rent for manufacturing premises is a business outlay. The AO neither showed the expenditure to be capital nor supported a colourable purpose. Consequently, the disallowance of lease rent could not be sustained. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance of ₹5,69,95,061/- by the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds raised by the Revenue in all appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted them. After considering the submissions and relying on a previous Third Member decision in Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., the Tribunal held that the price at which the assessee purchased power from the distribution licensee can be applied as a valid CUP for determining the ALP. The deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA should be allowed without downward adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the initial notice under Section 148 was defective as it did not mention the correct assessment year and the corrigendum was issued after the limitation period. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 148 were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on capitalized withholding tax as the possibility of refund was speculative.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's benchmarking of interest on CCDs suffered from inherent defects, relying on a single foreign industrial yield data that was neither functionally comparable nor representative of Indian market lending conditions. The Tribunal found that judicial precedents like *Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd.* pertained to foreign-currency FCCDs or different commercial circumstances and did not lay down a universal benchmark of SBI PLR + 300 bps for INR-denominated CCDs. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. TPO's approach of adopting SBI PLR with a 75-basis-point risk adjustment as grounded in domestic financial realities and reflecting borrower-specific credit considerations. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings and allowed the revenue's grounds related to TP adjustments for AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds concerning the 'on money' receipt for all AYs. The assessee's cross-objections, including the challenge to jurisdiction and the claim regarding incriminating material, were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the issue of jurisdiction was not explicitly decided but the appeals were adjudicated on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly deleted the disallowance of lease rent expenditure. Regarding the first two issues, the Tribunal found no basis for the AO's allegations that the auction was manipulated or that GCSPL was a front for the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assets were purchased in an open public auction. The Ld. CIT(A) had examined the directors and shareholders of both the assessee and GCSPL and found no commonality, nor any directorship or shareholding of Shri Ajit Pawar in either company, thus refuting the AO's theory of connivance and benefit to Shri Ajit Pawar. The Tribunal also observed that the AO had not provided any evidence to support the claim that the lease arrangement was a pre-designed structure or that the rent was a sham. The conversion of outstanding rent into unsecured loans was not treated as an accommodation entry by the Ld. CIT(A) based on the evidence. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had adequately dealt with the issues raised by the AO and that the AO had failed to establish any nexus or connivance between the assessee and GCSPL. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for AY 2010-2011 were based on information received from the Directorate of Income-Tax (Inv.), Chennai, indicating that the assessee was making payments to car dealers in violation of Section 40(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938. These payments were allegedly made in the guise of reimbursement of expenses or outsourced services. The AO noted that for AY 2014-2015, a similar disallowance of INR 1,83,11,32,413 was made under Section 37 in respect of identical payments. The AO concluded that these payments were in the nature of commission and not allowable expenses under Section 37, leading to the belief that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment. The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as there was tangible material (information from Directorate of Income-Tax (Inv.), Chennai, and the disallowance in AY 2014-2015) which formed the basis for the AO's belief that income had escaped assessment. The issue regarding the allowability of expenses under Section 37 was not decided in this portion of the judgment, but the validity of reassessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2010-2011, the grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings were not elaborated upon in the judgment, and the appeal was partly allowed. For AY 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, the Tribunal held that disallowances made under Section 40(a)(i) for payments to non-resident reinsurers who did not have any branches or PE in India were not called for. The Tribunal relied on decisions of coordinate benches in Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. and Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., deleting the disallowances. For AY 2019-2020, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of INR 6,72,95,652/- made in respect of payments to auto dealers, following the reasoning adopted for AY 2012-2013 and a decision in HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. The disallowance was deleted under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2019-2020, the appeal preferred by the Assessee was allowed, and the appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed. The overall conclusion indicated that appeals and cross-objections were disposed of with varying results for different assessment years.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated merely on account of a 'change of opinion' and that there must be tangible material to believe income has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening must have a 'live link' to the formation of this belief.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2010-2011, the grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings were not elaborated upon in the judgment, and the appeal was partly allowed. For AY 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, the Tribunal held that disallowances made under Section 40(a)(i) for payments to non-resident reinsurers who did not have any branches or PE in India were not called for. The Tribunal relied on decisions of coordinate benches in Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. and Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., deleting the disallowances. For AY 2019-2020, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of INR 6,72,95,652/- made in respect of payments to auto dealers, following the reasoning adopted for AY 2012-2013 and a decision in HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. The disallowance was deleted under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2019-2020, the appeal preferred by the Assessee was allowed, and the appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed. The overall conclusion indicated that appeals and cross-objections were disposed of with varying results for different assessment years.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly any material fact necessary for framing the assessment for Assessment Year 2010-2011. While the reasons recorded demonstrated a link between the material before the AO and the formation of a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, they fell short of the requirements of the First Proviso to Section 147. The Tribunal noted that the AO, after recording facts leading to the belief of escapement, failed to record that the non-disclosure of full and true facts by the assessee had resulted in such escapement. Although the AO formed a view of the assessee's failure to disclose the true nature of arrangements with motor car dealers, the AO did not record the belief that this failure resulted in the escapement of income. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B.Wadkar.
The Tribunal found that while the sale consideration was Rs. 2,19,00,000/-, an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was paid to confirming parties, reducing the attributable consideration to Rs. 1,79,00,000/-. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute LTCG using a mid-path FMV of Rs. 17.50/- per sq. mtr. and Cost Inflation Index of 100 as on 01.04.1981.
The Tribunal held that disallowances made by the Assessing Officer for payments to non-resident reinsurers without a Permanent Establishment in India were not justified. It also deleted disallowances on payments made to auto dealers, relying on previous tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of provision for expenses, directing the AO to delete the addition. It also restored the issue of depreciation on assets capitalized on March 31, 2009, to the AO for verification.