Messages

ITA number 1734/Bang/2024
"In view of the above facts, we restore the whole issue back to the file of the ld. AO with directions to the assessee to benchmark the outstanding receivable based on currency in which invoices are prepared. Appropriate mark-up thereon or reduction from that interest bank rate would depend upon the risk factors involved in the above transaction which is between the holding company/AE and its subsidiary. The ld. AO thereafter may examine in accordance with the provisions of section 92CA for the determination of ALP of the international transaction and then decided the issue afresh. The assessee is also entitled to raise an issue that if in the international transaction of Software Development Services segment and ITeS segment, working capital adjustment is granted to the assessee, no separate addition is required to be made. Therefore, this aspect is also left to be adjudicated by the ld. AO. In view of these facts, ground No.3 of the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld. AO"
Question is that when the matter is sent back to the AO for deciding afresh then for what reason the hands of the AO are being tide with unnecessary observations. Further on what basis it is held that it is a case of Capital Financing. Further the drafting the language of the order would show the quality of the order.

[he said provisions should be strictly interpreted so as to achieve the larger intent of the Legislature]

ITA No:- 1499/Hyd/2019- Authored by Manjunatha Accountant Member

"Coming back to case laws relied upon by the ld.DR for the Revenue. The ld.DR relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. HES Infra Pvt. Ltd (supra), We have gone through the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the above case, and we find that, the Tribunal has gone on sole premise of interpretation of statutory provisions in light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company (supra) and held that in case of a person claiming deduction under the provisions of Section 80IA(4), the onus is on the assessee to prove that the assessee has fulfilled all the parameters laid down by the statute for claiming deduction. Since the appellant has not entered into agreement with these Government / statutory authorities, there is a violation as laid down by the statute and the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction. With due respect, we are unable to follow the decision relied upon by the ld.DR for the simple reason that, in the above case, the Tribunal has not discussed whether the appellant is otherwise eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act or not. Secondly, while deciding the issue, the Tribunal has not considered the decision of co-ordinate bench in appellant's own case for earlier years and other decisions rendered by the co- ordinate bench of the Tribunal. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a subsequent decision in the case of Government of Kerala and another Vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent in Civil Appeal No.202 of 2012, after considering its earlier decision in case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company (supra) held that the 5-Judge Bench did not refer to line of authority which made a distinction between exemption provisions generally and exemption provisions which have a beneficial purpose. The Court further held that they cannot agree with Shri Gupta's contention that sub-silentio the line of judgments qua beneficial exemptions has been done away with by this 5-Judge Bench. It is well settled that a decision is only an authority for what it decides and not what it matters logically follow from it. This being the case, it is obvious that the beneficial purpose of exemption contained in Section 3(1)(b) must be given full effect to, the line of authority being applicable to the facts of those cases being the line of authority which deals with beneficial exemptions as opposed to exemptions generally in tax statutes. This being the case, a literal formalistic interpretation of the statute at hand should be eschewed. Going by the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, it is undisputedly clear that exemption provisions should be interpreted liberally in order to achieve the objectives of the legislature"

Mr Manjunath has not followed his own view in SEW Infrastructure case and observed as under:- reported in 209 ITD 1(SB)
"32......At this stage, we are taking support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company, (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that beneficial provisions like, deductions exemptions provisions are required to be strictly interpreted and any perceived ambiguity would necessarily ensure to the benefit of the revenue. We further note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of PCIT Vs. Wipro Ltd (supra) has also considered the interpretation of provisions of Section 10B of the Act and held that such an option should be exercised before the due date under Section 139(1) by way of filing a declaration. Although the said decision was in the context of withdrawal of exemption under Section 10B of the Act, in our considered view, when it comes to the interpretation of exemption and deduction provisions, the said provisions should be strictly interpreted so as to achieve the larger intent of the Legislature. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that when the appellant filed its return of income in response to a notice under Section 153A of the Act, it partakes the nature of the return filed under Section 139 of the Act and thus, all the conditions prescribed under Section 80A (5) and Section 80AC are satisfied is contrary to law and devoid of merit and cannot be accepted.

Meaning thereby the Accountant member has not followed his own view and has twisted his own view for the reasons best known to him. He has twisted the interpretation in his own way, so the president of ITAT must ask his explanation & Intelligence agencies must step in 

[ITA Number 60/Bang/2025 vide order dated 04.11.2025]

Recently Bangalore Bench of the ITAT has completely overlooked the decision of Mumbai Bench for deciding a big matter in favour of an assessee for the reasons best known to the Bench. The Bench comprising of Vice President of ITAT, who has authored the order has observed as under in ITA Number 60/Bang/2025 vide order dated 04.11.2025.- 

"This view is further supported by the Circular No.68 [F.No.245/17/71- A&PC] dated 7.11.1971 wherein it is clarified that a mistake arising as a result of subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme Court would constitute a mistake apparent from the record and rectification application u/s. 154 would be in order. Therefore, it has been decided that when assessee moves an application u/s. 154 pointing out that in the later decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounces the correct legal position, a mistake has occurred, the application shall be acted upon if filed in time. Therefore, in view of the Circular issued by the Income Tax Department, no fault can be found with the order of the ld. CIT(A)"

The above view taken for the benefit of an assessee in a big case is contrary to the judgment of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT wherein the MA of department has been dismissed by the Bench in the case of DCIT Vs ANI Integrated Services MA number 167/ Mum/2023- dated 29.05.2025. Wherein the Coordinate Bench in nutshell has held that subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is not mistake apparent from record and dismissed the revenue's MA for the benefit of assessee.

So in these days the old and claver members are misguiding the revenue and the president and there is no one who can blow a whistle against corruption. Why not a case shall be registered by the CBI against the members for taking contradictory views.

And last but not least the member who has authored the order of the ANI Integrated has also overlooked his own view in the case of Neelkanth Mension in MA number 333/Mum/2023 wherein he has held that subsequent decision of Checkmate is mistake apparent from record. Fantastic work is done by the members of ITAT they should be rewarded on 26th Jan parade by the PMO. Further I am going to file complaints with offices of Agencies. 

[https://www.barandbench.com/news/heated-exchange-judicial-member-technical-member-nclt-chandigarh]

"I have tolerated you so much": Heated exchange between Judicial Member and Technical Member of NCLT Chandigarh
A lawyer who witnessed the exchange between the two members told Bar and Bench on condition of anonymity that the technical member has had disagreements with the judicial member in open court in the past as well.
https://www.barandbench.com/news/heated-exchange-judicial-member-technical-member-nclt-chandigarh
Recently an interesting news as quoted above has been surfaced in the various newspapers and at the web portal of Bar and Bench. I have heard that in ITAT also so many incidents are happening like recently an order has been passed by one member of Calcutta Bench in the case of Chandan Pradhan. Similarly, so many allegations are levied against junior members of 2024 batch that they are passing dissent orders and not consenting with the views of senior members. So it is very sorry state of affair in these days at the judicial forums, where the public interest writ large. And the sole reason is that personal and vested interest of the senior members is not getting fulfilment due to knowledgeable junior members. The seniors are making false allegations against junior members without knowing that if any matter would reach to any High Court then as per the provisions of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act the presumption would be drawn against the senior member. Supposingly,  if any junior member would state before the investigating agency or some other nodal agency or before the High Court that the senior member or VPs of  zone are pressurising him to pass favourable judicial order to any of the party then the High Court or any other agency would presume the allegation against the senior member as correct for the simple reason that the Senior is sitting in influential position and hence as per the provisions of section 114 of the Indian Evidence act as well as the various landmark cases decided by the Highest Court of this country, the presumption would go against them and then the burden is on senior to prove otherwise. Being a retried Government Servant it is my duty to spread such knowledge in the society which bring harmony among colleagues.

It is observed that Transfer pricing matters are put in separate Benches, at big stations like Delhi and Mumbai it is perfect. However at small stations like Bangalore why there is a separate Bench, and that too not functions many times. Why only one type of members sit is such benches. Why not all the members would sit turn by turn. These inherent corrupt questions are to be made from the respective Vice presidents who have made a separate Bench for TP cases. It is clear cut case of corruption, my words may be harsh but that is a fact, for example at Bangalore station only one type of members are sitting in TP benches why others not been given opportunity to learn TP. When erstwhile VP era was there at Bangalore, TP matters were scattered all over the benches, now one bench is made exclusively and only one type of pair will sit in that bench, this is not justice with other members. Mr President Sir learn some strictness from the then Late Vimal Gandhi jee, who had guts to transfer the non working members in a ziff       

It is only for the name sake that the new members have rank equivalent to the post of secretary, at ground they don't have any facility for example they don't have any facility of having vehicle on Sunday, despite the fact that they are allowed to use the vehicle for personal purposes. They don't have any helping hand at home, which every govt servant, equivalent to the rank of secretary is having. Similarly so many facilities are not provided to the Members of the ITAT. Still they are working hard, everyone knows the reasons for this type of sacrifice, at some stations they don't have even vehicles for commuting, but still they are working and not quitting the job. At some stations they have vehicles but the vendors and their Driver are so ruthless that they don't follow the terms of the contract i.e. the availability of vehicle for 24 Hrs. Drivers after dropping these laborious members at around 6.30Pm evening run away with the vehicle, violating the mandatory terms of the contracts, no action by the corresponding vice presidents against such vendors, for the reasons best known to them. Why vigilance action should not be taken against the station head if the vendor is not following the terms of the Contract. Mr President Retired justice sahib take strict action against such vice presidents of the ITAT who are insulting Govt of India and not following the terms of contract, otherwise one day you will be in big problem, when law minister will put a note in this regard. Jai Hind     

Your interpretation is perfect. I fully agree with you

Recently I met one CBI officer & informed him about some members( CESAT), who are taking double views on same issue, he said a PE can be registered against such members without any approval of Home. He clarified that members of the Tribunal are not judges they are presiding officers and as per the Prevention of corruption act provisions if there is an apparent corruption then PE can be registered without any approval of Home and then if they failed to justify their action in PE FIR can be registered against them. He asked me example double yard stick, I quoted that some where the members have held that violation of principle of natural justice amounts to quashing of proceedings and somewhere they throw back the bowl in the coat of lower authorities. He suggested me to collect such orders from the web portals and asked me to make a note of such orders, then he assures me that CBI action would be taken against them definitely. I am collecting some orders from the net and then hand over these orders to the intelligence agencies. I asked him whether same procedure will be followed in respect of member of all tribunal he said yes 

I have come across very interesting episode of complaint by a Sr DR posted in G Bench Delhi, namely Shri Prakash Dubey. His complaint is that he dont receive any document via mail, sent by the counsels of assessee at the officials mail id given to them for virtual hearing and hence he is able to grab an adjournment in every case. When the I inquired from the ITO-ITAT- G Bench- She told that he is telling lie, she confirmed that she is delivering each and every document to him. Now only god knows that who is speaking truth, but the fact of the matter is that assessees are suffering due the adjournments. So my appeal to CBDT that enquiries may be conducted in this issue and necessary action of measure penalty should be taken against the culprit. Whoever is culprit should be punished with measure penalty. I am also sending a complaint to the chairman CBDT and Member Vigilance so that necessary inquiries would be done in this matter and  action as per vigilance laws may be taken against the real culprit. Further the members also adjourning cases conveniently ignoring the submissions of the counsel that they have mailed the documents. Some times counsels are filing the screen shot of the mail delivered. Now question arise as to why an innocent assessee would suffer due to this nuisance, as there is no fault of them. Further if the counsels are telling lie then action should be taken against them as per law, by the members.However the members should not act as mock spectators. It is injustice with poor assessees. 

ITO Vs Pawan Kumar 153 ITD 448(Del) have similar facts as of yours Mr Parsad.
The next decision is Gurpreet Singh Vs ITO 157 ITD 262(Chd)
Jaya Aggarwal Vs ITO-254 Taxman 398 (Del)

I hope that the above are enough

I have often heard from so many DRs that ITAT is a punishment posting for them for the reasons best known to them. I would not comment on this observation. Be that as it may be, when I joined ITAT the DRs who were working here were very responsible, understanding their duties towards court, were not arguing any thing nonsense. But now in these days few DRs particularly at Delhi are useless persons they always appear in a very casual manner, wont read their files and argue the matters left right center without any basis. I am also working for Central Govt since last 15 years, I have seen their that Govt counsels wont contest those cases which are covered by the judgments. However in the ITAT I have seen that DRs are arguing just for the sake of arguments without appreciating the verdicts of Higher Forum , I have made a list of such DRs and will submit to the Chairman CBDT and Revenue Secretary, along with the copies of judgments and ask for some action against them under the relevant vigilance rules & regulations. Be that as it may be dozens of my relatives are also working in  Income Tax department I will discuss with them also how vigilance action should be initiated against such useless persons and why Govt will not give them Compulsory retirement under the provisions of section 56 of the Prevention of corruption act. I will not name here, though I can. But i will not name otherwise they would be cautioned. But the point is that why they waste time of the court. Why they wont respect the precedents of higher courts is an issue which requires consideration at higher level. In fact the ITAT members should impose cost on them directly deductible from their salaries, if they wont concede a case which is covered by the Higher Forum. With this I would end here and hope that legal lumanaries would support my views. 

It has been learned by me that every important station a UBS BEDI type member is kept by the chairman so that things would remain under control or may be for some other ulterior reason, but let me tell you one thing that this type of administration is highly critcised by the international community, who want to provide FDI but wont invest due to these type of reasons so Law Ministry has to see this and do something as early as possible 

In this case the Apex Court has laid down certain rules regarding the transfer/ posting of the learned members of ITAT, now in these days it appears that the authority vested with the power of transfer is not following the verdict of this case. As it can be seen that many of the members have been given posting at those places where they have practiced. Why Supreme Court is not taking cognizance suo motto   

Hon'ble Delhi High Court is not hearing those matters in which the hearing would go beyond 30 Minutes, now the question is whether ITAT can hear those matters where hearing go beyond 30 minutes, whether it is not incumbent on the President of ITAT who retried as judge of High Court to issue necessary directions vis-a-vis cases required long hearing. The president should have directed to list these cases for physical hearing is the view of the undersigned who is a social worker not an advocate or CA

Hello friends recently I have visited USA in order to attend conference of NATP, it was a great session, I am fully amazed, observing the respect to the verdicts of Highest Judicial Fora, the lower Judicial officers pay great respect to the observations made by the Apex Body, they completely bow down to the guidelines, irrespective of their personal benefits. When i hung around and took a survey, I found the reason behind this respect and that is the respect to the concept of Rule of Law, Rule of law is a concept developed by AV Diecy in his book Constitution of London way back. All the legal luminaries be the judicial officers and be the practitioners, follow the concept of rule of law. It is not merely in the interest of judicial system, they said, but also in the interest of nation, since FDI in those countries would not come where there is no rule of law. For example the present position of lndia, people think that judgments of ITAT r buried only here in India but I found that each and every judgment be it on penny stock be it on section 68, be it on transfer pricing have been analyzed at length by the in house legal brains of the Foreign players who explore the environment of a state before investing in that state, in fact i got a shock of 440 Volt when I found that are watching the transfer and posting of members at Important stations. One of them shown me the data of last 10 years transfer of posting and also the judgment of Ajay Gandhi. I was surprised to see this minuscule research of the professionals of foreign investors. They openly said why one would invest in such a country where there is no respect of rule of law, as ultimately the investor would suffer and incur losses. Similarly there are so many other things they have shown to me which would when confront to the Govt of India here then a chaotic situation may arise. They really appreciate the ITAT Bar of Bombay which a Committee of Ethics.