ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply the aggregation approach for benchmarking international transactions and allowed royalty and homologation expenses as revenue expenditure, following its previous decisions.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply the aggregation approach for benchmarking international transactions and allowed royalty and homologation expenses as revenue expenditure, following its previous decisions.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. It also held that various miscellaneous receipts, including sales tax refund and VAT reimbursement, were eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) as they were linked to the business activity.

The Tribunal decided that the revenue recognition method followed by the assessee was acceptable, and liquidated damages were allowable in full. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was upheld to the extent of 2.5% of exempt income, and sales commission paid to certain parties was disallowed. The provision for warranty was allowed in full, and legal expenses paid to McKinsey & Company were held to be revenue in nature.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply the aggregation approach for benchmarking international transactions and allowed royalty and homologation expenses as revenue expenditure, following its previous decisions.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the aggregation approach for benchmarking international transactions and allowing royalty and homologation expenses as revenue expenditure. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals regarding transfer pricing adjustments by directing the application of an aggregation approach. It also allowed royalty and homologation expenses as revenue expenditure, following its previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that the land sold was agricultural land, and the surplus was not taxable as business income. It also reduced the disallowance on development expenses.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to international transactions with AEs, not the entire turnover. The Revenue's appeal challenging this restriction was dismissed, while the assessee's appeals regarding the benchmarking and comparables were partly allowed.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply the aggregation approach for benchmarking international transactions and allowed royalty and homologation expenses as revenue expenditure, following its previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of loan transactions and creditworthiness of lenders by providing necessary documents. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 21,45,000/- was deleted.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to international transactions with AEs, not the entire turnover. The Revenue's appeal challenging this restriction was dismissed, while the assessee's appeals regarding the benchmarking and comparables were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the difference in transaction volume between the AE and non-AE should be considered for granting quantity discount. The matter was restored to the TPO/AO to grant the benefit of volume discount for the specific product '15 ML Smart Collection'.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned. It also held that various miscellaneous receipts, including sales tax refund and VAT reimbursement, were eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) as they were linked to the business activity.

The Tribunal decided that the revenue recognition method followed by the assessee was acceptable, and liquidated damages were allowable in full. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was upheld to the extent of 2.5% of exempt income, and sales commission paid to certain parties was disallowed. The provision for warranty was allowed in full, and legal expenses paid to McKinsey & Company were held to be revenue in nature.

The Tribunal held that the aggregation approach for benchmarking closely linked international transactions, including the import of straws and export of packaging material, is valid. This approach had been consistently accepted by the Tribunal in previous assessment years for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as it fell below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT Circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the management services were not stewardship activities and that the payment of fees at actual cost plus a 5% mark-up was at arm's length price. Therefore, no transfer pricing addition was warranted.

The Tribunal found that while the expenses were not doubted, the credibility of some documentary evidence was questionable. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the management services were not stewardship activities and that the payment of fees at actual cost plus a 5% mark-up was at arm's length price. Therefore, no transfer pricing addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed the correct brought forward loss in the return for the preceding year. Non-filing of a revised return was a hypothetical assumption by the department and not evidence of intent to conceal income.

The tribunal held that the dispute was primarily about the selection of comparables, which is a matter of analysis and study. It found no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, thus deeming the penalty unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was to be dismissed on account of low tax effect, as it fell below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision on melting loss and salary disallowance, finding no infirmity. However, the issue of transactions with Chhoriya group was remanded to the Assessing Officer for detailed verification.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

For AY 2005-06, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's explanation for certain deposits. For AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal found the additional evidence submitted by the assessee relevant and decided to admit it. The appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue after considering this new evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) due to lack of adequate opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1)/201(1A) were barred by limitation. The time limit for passing such orders was two years from the end of the financial year in which the TDS statement was filed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal restored the issue of excess cane price paid to sugarcane suppliers to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following the Supreme Court's directions. The contribution to Vasantdada Sugar Institute and harvesting/transportation expenses were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal found the additional evidence submitted by the assessee relevant and decided to admit it. The appeals were remanded to the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue after considering this new evidence.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies where Section 44 applies, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for education cess as an allowable expenditure.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal held that the assessee successfully explained the source of Rs. 5.20 lakh as a re-deposit of withdrawn cash. However, no argument was advanced for the remaining Rs. 3.80 lakh.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the cases to the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue of TDS default after considering the new evidence. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant relief where conditions for not being treated as an assessee in default were met.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that sufficient opportunity to produce information was not afforded. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the difficulty in retrieving old data from voluminous records.