Loading ITAT cases…
246 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 32 days, finding it to be due to genuine hardship and not deliberate. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and the source of credits was not explained. However, the Assessing Officer was not correct in treating the entire credits as income without considering debit transactions. Fresh evidences were filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A (normal assessment) to the actual exempt income of Rs. 2,542/-, thereby allowing this ground. The ground concerning donation disallowance was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. The appeal against disallowance for late payment of PF/ESIC was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Supreme Court's judgment in *Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd*. The ground relating to Section 115JB disallowance for Section 14A was not adjudicated, being rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E). This would allow for a fresh consideration of the application and the submissions made by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity and that remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration would serve the interest of justice. The orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct, including non-disclosure in the return, failure to file a revised return, and non-participation in penalty and appellate proceedings, pointed to gross neglect or deliberate concealment. The claim of inadvertence was unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs.12,785/- made under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. This was based on the concession made by the assessee's learned Authorized Representative (AR) that the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the assessee's own case, and the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, this ground was dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs.1,14,75,362/-, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished a reconciliation statement and explained plausible reasons for the mismatch, such as timing and accounting differences, TDS on gross values, and third-party errors. These explanations and the reconciliation were not available to the AO or CIT(A) in the same manner as presented before the Tribunal. Considering the principle of judicial consistency and the need for factual verification, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after examining the reconciliation and supporting documents, and affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that while the vendor's nature and the assessee's failure to establish an arm's length transaction justified an estimation of embedded profit, outright rejection of purchases was not warranted. The addition was restricted to 5% of the purchase value.
The Tribunal held that the matter needs to be set aside to the Assessing Officer to refer the property valuation to the DVO under Section 50C(2). For cash deposits, the Tribunal directed to work out income at 3% of cash deposits, consistent with the revenue's own treatment in AY 2011-12, as opposed to the assessee's requested 2.5%.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details and explanations regarding the cash deposits, correlating them with previous withdrawals. The Tribunal also noted that Section 115BBE was introduced on 15-12-2016, and the transactions occurred prior to its introduction.
The Tribunal held that the matter needs to be set aside to the Assessing Officer to refer the property valuation to the DVO under Section 50C(2). For cash deposits, the Tribunal directed to work out income at 3% of cash deposits, consistent with the revenue's own treatment in AY 2011-12, as opposed to the assessee's requested 2.5%.
The Tribunal held that the matter needs to be set aside to the Assessing Officer to refer the property valuation to the DVO under Section 50C(2). For cash deposits, the Tribunal directed to work out income at 3% of cash deposits, consistent with the revenue's own treatment in AY 2011-12, as opposed to the assessee's requested 2.5%.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex parte. The assessee had sought an adjournment on 09.10.2024 to furnish submissions and supporting evidence. The record did not indicate that this request was disposed of or denied. The Tribunal found that denying an effective opportunity of hearing vitiated the appellate proceedings and violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek undue adjournments, and the CIT(A) was to dispose of the appeal by a speaking order after considering the submissions and documents. The issue regarding the addition under Section 40A(3) and its applicability under Rule 6DD was not decided on merits by the Tribunal, as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal found that the AO had attributed profit to the PE by applying a formula proposed by the CBDT via a letter dated 18th August 2019. The assessee had objected to this method before the AO, as the proposed rules were not finalized and incorporated into the statute or rules. The Tribunal held that the AO was not correct in working out the profit of the PE using a formula suggested by an Expert Committee, especially since the proposed rules were not yet part of the statute and could not be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal noted that Rule 10 of the Income Tax Rules provides for determining income in the case of non-residents. Since the profit attributed by the AO was not in accordance with an approved statutory method, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to re-allocate the profit attributable to the PE in accordance with Rule 10, considering methodologies prescribed therein, including examining the assessee's suggested method based on 'cost incurred by the assessee for its Indian operators'. The AO was given liberty to apply the most suitable methodology and was instructed to provide a categorical finding after hearing the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not examined the assessee's suggested methodology.
The Tribunal found that the AO had attributed profit to the PE by applying a formula proposed by the CBDT via a letter dated 18th August 2019. The assessee had objected to this method before the AO, as the proposed rules were not finalized and incorporated into the statute or rules. The Tribunal held that the AO was not correct in working out the profit of the PE using a formula suggested by an Expert Committee, especially since the proposed rules were not yet part of the statute and could not be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal noted that Rule 10 of the Income Tax Rules provides for determining income in the case of non-residents. Since the profit attributed by the AO was not in accordance with an approved statutory method, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to re-allocate the profit attributable to the PE in accordance with Rule 10, considering methodologies prescribed therein, including examining the assessee's suggested method based on 'cost incurred by the assessee for its Indian operators'. The AO was given liberty to apply the most suitable methodology and was instructed to provide a categorical finding after hearing the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not examined the assessee's suggested methodology.
The Tribunal noted that Ground No. 4 was not pressed and was dismissed. For the remaining grounds, the Tribunal referred to its decision in the case of Rajesh N. Desai (supra), which dealt with identical facts and the same HN Safal Group search. The Tribunal observed that in the assessee's own case, the AO had considered the seized material from the HN Safal Group search. The assessee had explained payments made through loans from DHFL Finance and HDFC Bank, details of which were provided in the assessment order. However, the AO, in paragraph 5.2 of the assessment order, ignored these facts and did not comment on the assessee's property purchase, loans, or bank account details, relying solely on the seized material which the Tribunal found not applicable. The Tribunal concluded that the decision in Rajesh N. Desai (supra) was applicable, and the learned DR could not point out any distinguishing facts. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that Ground No. 2 regarding PF and ESI late payment was dismissed as it was covered by a Supreme Court judgment. For Ground No. 1 concerning SGST refund addition, the Tribunal set aside the order to the Assessing Officer for verification as the subsidy was offered in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB (MAT) is not applicable to statutory corporations created under a Central Act, such as the National Dairy Development Board, which are not registered under the Companies Act. The Tribunal relied on a Special Bench decision which held that Section 115JB applies only to companies registered under the Companies Act, and the deeming fiction of a 'corresponding new bank' being an 'Indian company' for income-tax purposes does not extend to deeming it as a company under the Companies Act for MAT applicability. The Tribunal also referred to a Delhi High Court ruling concerning insurance companies, stating that provisions of Section 115JB do not apply to entities whose accounts are prepared as per specific regulations (like IRDA) and not as per Parts II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act. Consequently, the additions made by way of rectification orders under Section 154 applying MAT were quashed. The appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 was allowed, and the Revenue's appeals for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2013-14 were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB of the Act is not applicable to statutory corporations created under a Central Act, such as the National Dairy Development Board. Drawing parallels from Special Bench decisions concerning banks formed under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and decisions concerning insurance companies, the Tribunal concluded that Section 115JB applies only to companies registered under the Companies Act. The deeming fiction that a statutory body is an 'Indian company' for income-tax purposes does not extend to deeming it as a company under the Companies Act for the purpose of Section 115JB. Furthermore, the computation mechanism of Section 115JB fails if the profit and loss account is not prepared per the Companies Act. Consequently, the additions made under Section 115JB by way of rectification orders were quashed. The Tribunal also noted that the applicability of MAT to a statutory corporation is a debatable issue, not amenable to rectification under Section 154. The disallowance under Section 14A was also not to be added to the book profit computation. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of MAT provisions under Section 115JB is not leviable on a Statutory Corporation created under a Central Act, citing decisions in the context of banks and insurance companies. The Tribunal referred to a Special Bench decision which held that Section 115JB applies only to companies registered under the Companies Act, and the deeming fiction under Section 11 of the Acquisition Act is limited to income-tax purposes, not widening the scope of MAT. The Tribunal also referred to the Delhi High Court ruling in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT, which held that insurance companies preparing accounts as per IRDA Regulations are not subject to Section 115JB. Consequently, the additions made by way of rectification orders under Section 154 for MAT liability were quashed. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had decided the issue of Section 14A disallowance in favour of the assessee, rendering it academic in some appeals, and in other appeals, the rectification order was quashed based on the non-applicability of MAT. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of MAT provisions (Section 115JB) to a statutory corporation like NDDB is a debatable issue and not amenable to rectification under Section 154. The Tribunal relied on the Special Bench decision concerning banks and the Delhi High Court decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which held that Section 115JB is not applicable to statutory corporations or entities not registered under the Companies Act. The deeming fiction under Section 11 of the Acquisition Act for 'corresponding new banks' was held to be limited to income-tax purposes and not for widening the scope of MAT. Consequently, the additions made by way of rectification orders under Section 154, including MAT liability and disallowance under Section 14A to book profit, were quashed. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of MAT provisions (Section 115JB) to a statutory corporation is a debatable issue and not amenable to rectification under Section 154. The Tribunal relied on the Special Bench decision in the case of banks formed under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, which held that Section 115JB applies only to companies registered under the Companies Act. The Tribunal further noted that insurance companies preparing accounts as per IRDA Regulations are also not subject to Section 115JB, citing the Delhi High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that MAT is not leviable on a statutory corporation created under a Central Act, and the additions made through rectification orders are quashed. The disallowance under Section 14A being added to book profit was rendered academic by this finding. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 was allowed.
The Tribunal held that electrical installations are corollary to plant and machinery, thus 15% depreciation is allowable. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that there was sufficient cause preventing the assessee from filing the appeal earlier. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated against the father (appellant) were bad in law because the minor son's income, including the property investment, was already clubbed with the mother's income and offered to tax. The AO failed to take cognizance of this fact. Consequently, the tribunal deleted the addition made in the hands of the father and quashed the entire reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, noting the assessee's explanation regarding the former AR's non-compliance. The Revenue had no objection to setting aside the matter.
The Tribunal held that surcharge is leviable only when the total income exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs. The inclusion of surcharge in this case was erroneous as it violated statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that minimal expenses were justified due to factors like owning a water facility and low labor requirements, and noted that the sale receipts were not disputed. Finding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 15% reasonable, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that sustained disallowance solely on the basis of third-party non-response is not tenable, especially when the assessee has provided adequate primary evidence. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain a 2% disallowance to be contradictory.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies only to companies registered under the Companies Act. Statutory corporations, established under their own Acts and not incorporated under the Companies Act, are not covered by Section 115JB. The Tribunal relied on Special Bench decisions concerning banks and the Delhi High Court decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT, which held that insurance companies preparing accounts as per IRDA Regulations are not subject to Section 115JB. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that MAT is not leviable on a statutory corporation like NDDB, even after the amendment by the Finance Act, 2012. Consequently, the additions made under Section 115JB through rectification orders were quashed. The issue of Section 14A disallowance in the context of book profit computation under Section 115JB was rendered academic by the non-applicability of Section 115JB itself. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of MAT provisions under Section 115JB to statutory corporations is not amenable to rectification under Section 154 as it is a debatable issue. Relying on Special Bench decisions concerning banks and the Delhi High Court's decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that Section 115JB applies only to companies registered under the Companies Act. Statutory corporations, not incorporated under the Companies Act, are not covered by Section 115JB. Consequently, the additions made by way of rectification orders for charging MAT were quashed. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s decision on the Section 14A disallowance became academic in light of the decision on the applicability of Section 115JB. The appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2013-14 was allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance before the CIT(A) due to the death of their legal representative. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to allow another opportunity for re-adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) issued a notice of hearing but the assessee could not furnish details and sought adjournments. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication with an opportunity of hearing, while imposing a cost of Rs.1,000 on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1) was on the ground that the assessee had not filed Form 10B within the prescribed time. However, the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the basis for the disallowance under Section 143(1) no longer survived.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessee had provided all relevant documents to the AO, including payment schedules, invoices, bank statements, and sale deeds. The PCIT also failed to comment on these documents provided by the assessee during the revisionary proceedings.
The Tribunal held that Rs. 5,000/- should be considered as expenses for earning dividend income under Section 14A. For disallowance of interest expenses under Section 36(1)(iii), it was held that no notional interest is chargeable as the assessee had sufficient capital. For notional rent under Section 23(4), it was determined at Rs. 50,000/- per month, aligning with the CIT(A)'s earlier year order.
The Tribunal noted that opportunities were not properly given to the assessee and additional evidence was filed. It was found appropriate to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing as per natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding regarding deposits from franchises was categorical and no interference was needed, dismissing ground 1. For other grounds, including disallowance of membership fees, interest expenses, and additions related to advance payments and customer advances, the Tribunal partly allowed some grounds and remanded others for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to no revenue/tax impact and granted the permission. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal observed that while details were provided, the assessee failed to sufficiently substantiate the creditworthiness of the creditors with other supporting documents like sale of agricultural produce or income-expenditure accounts. Despite this, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue authorities did not conduct further inquiry. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order without adjudicating the appeal on merits. The order merely recorded non-compliance and dismissed the appeal without analysing the facts or legal grounds. The Tribunal found that the interest of natural justice demanded that the assessee be granted an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the CIT(A). This was particularly in light of the assessee's plea that non-compliance was due to communication lapses and that the assessee had now taken steps to furnish relevant documents and case law support. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and file all relevant submissions, and the CIT(A) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they are availing the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) solely on the ground that the assessee did not possess registration under section 12AB. However, subsequent to the impugned order, the assessee was granted registration under section 12AB(1)(b) by the CIT(E) on 08.04.2025, effective for AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. This registration was granted pursuant to directions from a Coordinate Bench. Since the basis for the CIT(E)'s rejection no longer existed, the Tribunal found that the matter required to be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication of the application under section 80G(5)(iii) on merits, after affording the assessee due opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.