Loading ITAT cases…
326 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the assessee due to delay. The assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay of 164 days in filing the appeals, particularly for the 97 days after acquiring knowledge of the orders through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments in P.K. Ramachandran, Basawaraj, and Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. to emphasize that delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without a satisfactory explanation and that negligence or lack of due diligence are valid reasons for refusal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed, as indicated in the concluding summary. The specific issue regarding the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 25% and the consideration of cash sales and expenditure was not decided on merits due to the dismissal of appeals on limitation grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections. Regarding the TP adjustment for AY 2010-11, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 2,75,91,231/- adjustment. The reasoning was that comparables like TCS E-Serve Limited, Infosys BPO Limited, and Accentia Technologies Limited should be excluded due to significant differences in turnover (more than 10 times the assessee's turnover), functional dissimilarity, and risk profiles. The Tribunal found that even without the turnover filter, these comparables were not fit. The revised operating margin after excluding these comparables was found to be lower than the assessee's margin, indicating no upward TP adjustment was warranted. The Tribunal also noted that Eclerx Services Limited, selected for AY 2011-12, was functionally different, engaged in high-end analytical services, and failed the 10 times turnover filter, thus rightly excluded by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee in the cross-objections as academic or infructuous, as they were either in support of the CIT(A)'s findings or rendered moot by the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The issue of notional interest on receivables was not explicitly decided in the provided text but was part of the assessee's cross-objections.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections. Regarding the TP adjustment for AY 2010-11, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 2,75,91,231/- adjustment. The reasoning was that comparables like TCS E-Serve Limited, Infosys BPO Limited, and Accentia Technologies Limited should be excluded due to significant differences in turnover (more than 10 times the assessee's turnover), functional dissimilarity, and risk profiles. The Tribunal found that even without the turnover filter, these comparables were not fit. The revised operating margin after excluding these comparables was found to be lower than the assessee's margin, indicating no upward TP adjustment was warranted. The Tribunal also noted that Eclerx Services Limited, selected for AY 2011-12, was functionally different, engaged in high-end analytical services, and failed the 10 times turnover filter, thus rightly excluded by the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee in the cross-objections as academic or infructuous, as they were either in support of the CIT(A)'s findings or rendered moot by the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The issue of notional interest on receivables was not explicitly decided in the provided text but was part of the assessee's cross-objections.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal set aside the sugarcane purchase price issue to the AO for de-novo adjudication, considering amendments and circulars, and directed the AO to allow the set-off of carry forward losses. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the assessee due to delay. The assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay of 164 days in filing the appeals, particularly for the 97 days after acquiring knowledge of the orders through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments in P.K. Ramachandran, Basawaraj, and Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. to emphasize that delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without a satisfactory explanation and that negligence or lack of due diligence are valid reasons for refusal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed, as indicated in the concluding summary. The specific issue regarding the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 25% and the consideration of cash sales and expenditure was not decided on merits due to the dismissal of appeals on limitation grounds.
The Tribunal restored the Section 54F issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. The addition on account of waived rental income was deleted, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to unsigned notices. It also noted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate this jurisdictional issue and other grounds related to the merits of the case.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the assessee due to delay. The assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay of 164 days in filing the appeals, particularly for the 97 days after acquiring knowledge of the orders through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments in P.K. Ramachandran, Basawaraj, and Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. to emphasize that delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without a satisfactory explanation and that negligence or lack of due diligence are valid reasons for refusal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed, as indicated in the concluding summary. The specific issue regarding the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 25% and the consideration of cash sales and expenditure was not decided on merits due to the dismissal of appeals on limitation grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the assessee due to delay. The assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay of 164 days in filing the appeals, particularly for the 97 days after acquiring knowledge of the orders through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments in P.K. Ramachandran, Basawaraj, and Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. to emphasize that delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without a satisfactory explanation and that negligence or lack of due diligence are valid reasons for refusal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed, as indicated in the concluding summary. The specific issue regarding the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 25% and the consideration of cash sales and expenditure was not decided on merits due to the dismissal of appeals on limitation grounds.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the assessee due to delay. The assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay of 164 days in filing the appeals, particularly for the 97 days after acquiring knowledge of the orders through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments in P.K. Ramachandran, Basawaraj, and Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. to emphasize that delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without a satisfactory explanation and that negligence or lack of due diligence are valid reasons for refusal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed, as indicated in the concluding summary. The specific issue regarding the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 25% and the consideration of cash sales and expenditure was not decided on merits due to the dismissal of appeals on limitation grounds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of suffering from chronic and acute piles requiring surgery, and acute back pain with advised bed rest, constituted a reasonable and bona fide cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not presented any evidence to suggest the delay was deliberate or due to mala fide conduct. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. CIT, the Tribunal emphasized adopting a justice-oriented and liberal approach in condoning delays. As the Learned CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits due to the delay, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the Learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary documents without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal set aside the sugarcane purchase price issue to the AO for de-novo adjudication, considering amendments and circulars, and directed the AO to allow the set-off of carry forward losses. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Regarding the first ground concerning the validity of the show cause notice alleging both under-reporting and misreporting, the Tribunal, respectfully following the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Spunwell Syntex (P.) Ltd., held that even if a specific subcategory of Section 270A(9) was not explicitly mentioned, the reference to 'under-reporting consequences of misreporting' was sufficient. Therefore, there was no error in the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A. The Tribunal found no substance in the assessee's argument that a computational or interpretational error corrected voluntarily cannot be equated with misreporting, especially when the assessment order indicated failure to produce accounting records, bringing it within the scope of 'underreporting in consequence of misreporting'. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of prior approval under Section 274(2), noting the CIT(A)'s observation that in faceless proceedings, every notice/order is issued after prior approval of the range head (JCIT/Addl.CIT), and thus, the penalty order was passed after obtaining necessary approval. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order on this issue. Grounds 4 and 5 were general and not adjudicated. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus regarding the cash deposits by providing Aadhar cards of lenders and that retirement benefits and agricultural income were sufficient to explain the source of funds. The addition for unexplained cash deposit was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation report could not be accepted as it was. Firstly, the assessee's objections, submitted via email, were not entertained by the DVO due to a technicality (lack of power of attorney), and the report was finalized without deciding these objections. Secondly, the DVO's report dated 19.08.2019 was furnished beyond the six-month period prescribed by Section 142A(6) of the Act, as the reference was made on 26.12.2018, making the due date 30.06.2019. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Golden Tulip Hospitality (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT. Therefore, no addition could be made on the basis of a belated and procedurally flawed valuation report. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the expenses of Rs. 2,25,000/-, considering the circumstances of cancellation and re-execution of sale agreements. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directed the AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 2,25,000/- towards transfer expenses, and to consider the actual sale consideration of Rs. 74,00,000/- for calculating long-term capital gain instead of Rs. 84,73,500/-. The grounds of appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards the peak credit balance in the bank account and Rs. 1,20,000/- for salary earned. However, it directed the Assessing Officer not to invoke Section 115BBE on the sustained addition, considering the employer's affidavit.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the inclusion of Ksolves India Pvt Ltd, Consilient Technologies pvt ltd, Great Software laboratories pvt ltd, IDS Infotech Itd, Systango Technologies ltd, Sagarsoft Ltd, and Data Collection Infotech (India) Pvt Ltd as comparable companies was not appropriate when compared to the activities and turnover of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the TPO/DRP had erred in including these companies as valid comparables. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude these companies and recompute the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). Regarding the computation of working capital adjusted margins, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the TPO for verification and to grant appropriate relief if required. The Tribunal also noted that grounds relating to penalty initiation were premature and other grounds were not argued.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, partakes the character of compensation and is not taxable as 'interest' under Section 56(2)(viii). The Tribunal followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhaiv.Income-tax Officer-TDS-1-Surat.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and falls under the provisions of Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a capital receipt exempt from tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in similar cases, such as 'Rajendra Himmatrao Patil vs. ITO' and 'Sanjay Bajarang Todali and others'. The reasoning was that the compensation is for forced retirement under a revival plan and is akin to retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal also noted that the benefit of Section 10(10B) is applicable to all employees covered by such schemes, not restricted to 'workmen'. The impugned orders of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) were set aside. The assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities would verify and grant any refund due. The common issue raised in the grounds of appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the assessee due to delay. The assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay of 164 days in filing the appeals, particularly for the 97 days after acquiring knowledge of the orders through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments in P.K. Ramachandran, Basawaraj, and Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. to emphasize that delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without a satisfactory explanation and that negligence or lack of due diligence are valid reasons for refusal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed, as indicated in the concluding summary. The specific issue regarding the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 25% and the consideration of cash sales and expenditure was not decided on merits due to the dismissal of appeals on limitation grounds.
The Tribunal addressed two main issues. Firstly, regarding the disallowance under section 14A, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's cross-objection regarding the AO's failure to record satisfaction was not adjudicated by the CIT(A). Therefore, this issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Secondly, concerning the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for payments to non-residents: - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance for export commission and designing brochure expenses (Rs. 4,78,55,027/-), finding that these were incurred for earning income from outside India, thus falling under the exception in section 9(1)(vii)(b). - The Tribunal sustained the disallowance for import inspection expenses (Rs. 44,78,680/-), holding that these were Fees for Technical Services and not incurred for earning income from outside India. - The issue of legal compliance expenses (Rs. 3,39,46,157/-) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to determine if these were incurred for earning income from outside India, as the CIT(A) had not examined this aspect. The Tribunal noted that Tax Resident Certificates were not submitted before the AO. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the assessee due to delay. The assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay of 164 days in filing the appeals, particularly for the 97 days after acquiring knowledge of the orders through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments in P.K. Ramachandran, Basawaraj, and Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. to emphasize that delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without a satisfactory explanation and that negligence or lack of due diligence are valid reasons for refusal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed, as indicated in the concluding summary. The specific issue regarding the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 25% and the consideration of cash sales and expenditure was not decided on merits due to the dismissal of appeals on limitation grounds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A), Pune for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the impugned amount was offered to tax in the subsequent year. If confirmed, the addition made for the current assessment year was to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was beyond the limitation period and therefore bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued on July 25, 2022, for AY 2015-16, was bad in law and time-barred. This was based on the concession made by the Revenue and various judicial precedents regarding the applicability of TOLA and the limitation period for reopening assessments.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide details of commission income, a reasonable percentage of the deposits should be considered as income. The addition was restricted to 4% of the total deposits.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to consider the assessee's actual share in the land purchase and incorrectly calculated the alleged escapement of income. The notice under Section 148 was deemed bad in law as the alleged escapement was less than Rs. 50 lakh and issued beyond the prescribed time limit.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and dismissed both grounds related to jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the Faceless Appeal Center, a unit of the Revenue, allocated the assessee's appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), Pune-13. The Revenue, through the Principal CIT, Pune, then raised a jurisdictional objection. Crucially, the Revenue did not raise any objection before the Ld. CIT(A) when the appeal was pending, despite being aware of it, as evidenced by the AO's admission of receiving the appeal memo. The Tribunal found it unacceptable for the Revenue to raise a jurisdictional issue at this stage after the Ld. CIT(A) had already decided the appeal. Regarding the interpretation of the CBDT Notification, the Tribunal found that reading all three conditions (TPO order, ALP grounds, related penalties) together led to an absurd interpretation, suggesting that not all conditions needed to be satisfied simultaneously for the Ld. CIT(A) to have jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's interpretation that the Ld. CIT(A) had jurisdiction. Since the Revenue did not raise any grounds on the merits of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal did not comment on them. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the employees of BSNL under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019, were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and constituted capital receipts, exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous decisions and those of other coordinate benches, particularly the case of Prathibha Jagdish Unawane Vs. ITO. The reasoning was that the substance of the transaction, rather than its form, indicated termination of employment with compensation, aligning with the intent of Section 10(10B). The Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT(A) and allowed the grounds of appeal. Assessees were directed to submit revised computations of income to their respective Assessing Officers to claim the exemption under Section 10(10B), after which the revenue authorities were to grant any refund due after verification. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in CIT(A) orders on similar facts and emphasized the importance of consistency in judicial decisions.