- Welcome to itatonline.org Forum.
Recent posts
#1
Discussion / Useless decision of Bangalore ...
Last post by Ashish kumar - November 27, 2025, 05:52:31 PMITA 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.
"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.
#2
Discussion / Another inconsistence view of ...
Last post by Ashish kumar - November 27, 2025, 11:46:28 AMITA 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
"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
#3
Discussion / No consistency in the decision...
Last post by Ashish kumar - November 17, 2025, 05:10:28 PMRecently 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.
"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.
#4
Discussion / Section 114 of Indian Evidence...
Last post by Ashish kumar - August 31, 2025, 10:53:55 AM"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.
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.
#5
Discussion / Why TP matters are in a design...
Last post by Ashish kumar - May 13, 2025, 10:13:09 AMIt 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
#6
Discussion / Facilities to new appointees (...
Last post by Ashish kumar - May 13, 2025, 10:05:55 AMIt 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
#7
Discussion / Re: validity of notices u/s 1...
Last post by Ashish kumar - May 13, 2025, 09:50:26 AMYour interpretation is perfect. I fully agree with you
#8
Discussion / Re: validity of notices u/s 1...
Last post by satyanveshi - October 04, 2023, 09:20:32 AMQuote from: satyanveshi on October 04, 2023, 09:15:05 AMThough I have posted this query nearly one year back, it didnot attract any attention from the stake holders... Recently, I found a decision of Telangana high court in the case of kankanala Ravindra reddy on the same issue.. The notices issued by JAOs without following the procedure of faceless manner are found to be knocked down by the honourable high court... Other than, Telangana high court any other high court has given decision on similar lines or different lines...
#9
Discussion / Re: validity of notices u/s 1...
Last post by satyanveshi - October 04, 2023, 09:15:05 AMThough I have posted this query nearly one year back, it didnot attract any attention from the stake holders... Recently, I found a decision of Telangana high court decision in the case of kankanala Ravindra reddy on the same... The notices issued by JAOs without following faceless manner are found to be knocked down by the honourable high court... Other than, Telangana high court any high court has given decision on similar lines or different lines...
#10
Discussion / Double standard of orders of M...
Last post by Ashish kumar - July 11, 2022, 05:57:57 PMRecently 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