Loading ITAT cases…
236 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee made compliance before the Assessing Officer, it failed to do so before the CIT(A), despite being granted nine opportunities. The assessee's representative requested an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) but also observed that the CIT(A)'s decision was based solely on the AO's findings due to the lack of assessee's participation. Considering the complexity of the issues and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. The CIT(A) was directed to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify the payment of cost, and proceed with the case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee made compliance before the Assessing Officer, it failed to do so before the CIT(A), despite being granted nine opportunities. The assessee's representative requested an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) but also observed that the CIT(A)'s decision was based solely on the AO's findings due to the lack of assessee's participation. Considering the complexity of the issues and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. The CIT(A) was directed to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify the payment of cost, and proceed with the case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 142 days, finding the assessee's explanation satisfactory. It set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh hearing, directing that the assessee be given one more opportunity to furnish necessary details for registration under Section 12AB and 80G(5) of the Act. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the consultant's hospitalization, as evidenced by a medical certificate. While the Tribunal was not entirely convinced by the explanation for non-cooperation with the CIT(E) during the initial proceedings, considering the serious consequences of denying final approval without a proper hearing, especially for an assessee with provisional approval, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E). The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee. However, noting the lack of sufficient cause for non-cooperation in the first round, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The CIT(E) was instructed to proceed with the matter after the cost deposit. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue could not dispute the non-service of hearing notices. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Disallowance of delayed payment to ESIC & PF: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the decision in CIT v. GSRTC and the Tribunal's own decision in the assessee's case for AY 2011-12. The disallowance was confirmed as the contributions were not deposited within the due date specified under the Explanation to Section 36(1)(va). The assessee's appeal on this ground was dismissed. 2. Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill: The judgment text is incomplete and does not provide the Tribunal's decision or reasoning on this issue. It only states the facts leading to the claim. 3. Charging of interest u/ss.234B & 234C: The judgment text is incomplete and does not provide the Tribunal's decision or reasoning on this issue. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(l)(c): The judgment text is incomplete and does not provide the Tribunal's decision or reasoning on this issue. 5. Sales Tax subsidy: The Revenue's appeal on this ground was partly allowed. The Tribunal held that the corporate/bank guarantee is an international transaction that needs to be benchmarked. It determined the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for commission at 0.5% based on various Tribunal decisions. The DRP's order was to be restored in this regard. 6. Depreciation on intangible assets: The judgment text is incomplete and does not provide the Tribunal's decision or reasoning on this issue. 7. Product registration expenses: The judgment text is incomplete and does not provide the Tribunal's decision or reasoning on this issue. 8. Benchmarking of loan u/s 92CA: The judgment text is incomplete and does not provide the Tribunal's decision or reasoning on this issue. 9. Deduction u/s 80IA: The judgment text is incomplete and does not provide the Tribunal's decision or reasoning on this issue. 10. Corporate guarantee commission: The Revenue's appeal on this ground was partly allowed. The Tribunal held that bank/corporate guarantee is an international transaction and needs to be benchmarked. It determined the ALP for commission at 0.5% based on several Tribunal decisions, stating this would serve justice to both parties. The ground of appeal of the revenue was partly allowed. Operative directions: The Revenue's appeals and assessee's appeals for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 were partly allowed. The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was allowed. The issue of depreciation on goodwill, interest under sections 234B & 234C, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were not decided in the provided text.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention, affirming that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was, in fact, claimed in the return and acknowledgement. It concluded that the denial was incorrect as it stemmed from a technical glitch in the return's breakup details, and therefore directed the CPC to allow the deduction for both assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of delayed payments to ESIC/PF, following its own prior decision. For the corporate guarantee commission, the Tribunal held it to be an international transaction and set the arm's length price (ALP) at 0.5%, partly allowing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention, affirming that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was, in fact, claimed in the return and acknowledgement. It concluded that the denial was incorrect as it stemmed from a technical glitch in the return's breakup details, and therefore directed the CPC to allow the deduction for both assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee made compliance before the Assessing Officer, it failed to do so before the CIT(A), despite being granted nine opportunities. The assessee's representative requested an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) but also observed that the CIT(A)'s decision was based solely on the AO's findings due to the lack of assessee's participation. Considering the complexity of the issues and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. The CIT(A) was directed to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify the payment of cost, and proceed with the case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee made compliance before the Assessing Officer, it failed to do so before the CIT(A), despite being granted nine opportunities. The assessee's representative requested an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) but also observed that the CIT(A)'s decision was based solely on the AO's findings due to the lack of assessee's participation. Considering the complexity of the issues and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. The CIT(A) was directed to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify the payment of cost, and proceed with the case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to income from 'business & profession' and cannot be invoked to disallow interest expense claimed against rental income. Consequently, the disallowance in the quantum appeal was deleted, and as the underlying addition was removed, the related penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment in the hands of a dead person is invalid in law. The issuance of a notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the AO to exercise powers under Section 147. A notice issued to a dead person is invalid unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction without objection. In this case, the legal heir informed the AO of the death and did not waive the requirement of a valid notice. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was invalid, and the AO lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the reassessment. The Tribunal noted that provisions like Section 292B and 292BB of the Act do not cure a jurisdictional defect, especially when the legal heir has not participated in the proceedings. Since no valid notice was issued to the legal heir within the limitation period, the proceedings are time-barred. Consequently, the reassessment made in the name of a deceased person is void ab initio and unsustainable. The Tribunal respectfully followed judicial precedents, including *Chandreshbhai J Patel vs. Income Tax Officer*, which held that a notice issued to a dead person is invalid and proceedings pursuant thereto are without authority of law. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, quashing the reassessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Given the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs for securing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies only to income from 'business & profession' and cannot be invoked to disallow interest expense claimed against rental income. Consequently, the disallowance in the quantum appeal was deleted, and as the underlying addition was removed, the related penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The ITAT, acknowledging the assessee's current possession of medical records, decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to reconsider the application for condonation of delay and, if condoned, to adjudicate the appeal after providing the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee made compliance before the Assessing Officer, it failed to do so before the CIT(A), despite being granted nine opportunities. The assessee's representative requested an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) but also observed that the CIT(A)'s decision was based solely on the AO's findings due to the lack of assessee's participation. Considering the complexity of the issues and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. The CIT(A) was directed to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify the payment of cost, and proceed with the case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the requirement of filing Form 10DA is directory and not mandatory. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that a mere delay in filing the form should not lead to the denial of the assessee's substantive right to claim the deduction under Section 80JJAA. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the CPC/AO was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee made compliance before the Assessing Officer, it failed to do so before the CIT(A), despite being granted nine opportunities. The assessee's representative requested an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) but also observed that the CIT(A)'s decision was based solely on the AO's findings due to the lack of assessee's participation. Considering the complexity of the issues and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. The CIT(A) was directed to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify the payment of cost, and proceed with the case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of delayed payments to ESIC/PF, following its own prior decision. Regarding depreciation on goodwill, the judgment was not fully provided, but it appears to be a point of contention. The Revenue's appeal concerning corporate guarantee commission was partly allowed, with the tribunal determining an ALP of 0.5%.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal, imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, and directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity for hearing regarding registration under Section 12AB.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of delayed payments to ESIC/PF, following its own prior decision. For the corporate guarantee commission, the Tribunal held it to be an international transaction and set the arm's length price (ALP) at 0.5%, partly allowing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the AO's failure to record dissatisfaction for invoking Rule 8D, noting that sufficient explanation was sought. It found the assessee's suo motu disallowance of Rs. 11,571/- under Section 14A to be inappropriate and directed the Assessing Officer to make a disallowance of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 14A.
The Tribunal referred to Section 275(1A) of the Act, which governs the passing of penalty orders based on revised assessment orders. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to pass an order giving effect to the decision in the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee made compliance before the Assessing Officer, it failed to do so before the CIT(A), despite being granted nine opportunities. The assessee's representative requested an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) but also observed that the CIT(A)'s decision was based solely on the AO's findings due to the lack of assessee's participation. Considering the complexity of the issues and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. The CIT(A) was directed to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify the payment of cost, and proceed with the case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s ex-parte order, restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to present its case, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee made compliance before the Assessing Officer, it failed to do so before the CIT(A), despite being granted nine opportunities. The assessee's representative requested an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) but also observed that the CIT(A)'s decision was based solely on the AO's findings due to the lack of assessee's participation. Considering the complexity of the issues and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. The CIT(A) was directed to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify the payment of cost, and proceed with the case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had exercised the option for the lower tax rate as evident from the ITR-6 and computation of income. The denial of the benefit was due to an inadvertent error in not filing Form 10-IC on time.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It accepted Rs.11 lakhs of the cash deposits as explained agricultural income, considering past assessments. However, the Rs.20 lakhs claimed as an unsecured loan was upheld as unexplained due to the assessee's failure to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the transaction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 142 days, finding the assessee's explanation satisfactory. It set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh hearing, directing that the assessee be given one more opportunity to furnish necessary details for registration under Section 12AB and 80G(5) of the Act. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee made compliance before the Assessing Officer, it failed to do so before the CIT(A), despite being granted nine opportunities. The assessee's representative requested an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) but also observed that the CIT(A)'s decision was based solely on the AO's findings due to the lack of assessee's participation. Considering the complexity of the issues and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. The CIT(A) was directed to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify the payment of cost, and proceed with the case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee made compliance before the Assessing Officer, it failed to do so before the CIT(A), despite being granted nine opportunities. The assessee's representative requested an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) but also observed that the CIT(A)'s decision was based solely on the AO's findings due to the lack of assessee's participation. Considering the complexity of the issues and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. The CIT(A) was directed to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, verify the payment of cost, and proceed with the case. The assessee was also directed to cooperate fully in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to decide on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of delayed payments to ESIC/PF, following its own prior decision. For the corporate guarantee commission, the Tribunal held it to be an international transaction and set the arm's length price (ALP) at 0.5%, partly allowing the Revenue's appeal on this issue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding the non-compliance bona fide and not willful. It set aside the rejection orders, stating that beneficial provisions like Section 12AB and 80G cannot be denied solely on procedural lapses when genuineness is not doubted, and remanded the matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to consider the existing valid registration, assess the maintainability of the new applications, re-examine the Section 80G(5)(iii) application, and provide a proper hearing. The assessee was ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs for procedural indifference.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 36,82,91,993/- under Section 69B was justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's contentions regarding the incorrect decoding of the MoU, the cancellation of the first MoU, and the execution of a second MoU were not disproven by the Assessing Officer. The AO failed to bring substantive evidence on record to establish the on-money payment. Furthermore, both the seller and the broker denied the existence of an on-money transaction. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 33,16,460/- under Section 69C. The Tribunal found that this addition was not supported by independent or corroborative evidence. The AO's reliance on an assumed brokerage rate without proof of actual payment was insufficient. Shri Suresh Thakkar did not quantify brokerage and stated he was not a party to the final transaction. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the revised Form 10, rectifying a typographical error, should be considered for accumulation under Section 11(2) and 11(5). The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal, affirming that exemption cannot be denied due to wrong details in the original audit report if verifiable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding the non-compliance bona fide and not willful. It set aside the rejection orders, stating that beneficial provisions like Section 12AB and 80G cannot be denied solely on procedural lapses when genuineness is not doubted, and remanded the matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to re-examine the details and explanations. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting that the assessee's counsel failed to adequately explain how the donations made to other trusts related to charitable purposes and did not provide any supporting documentation or a paper book. Consequently, the Tribunal found the grounds raised by the assessee to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that TDS was not required for property purchases where the consideration paid to each co-owner was below Rs. 50 lakhs, and also for the second property as the total consideration was below the threshold before the amendment considering stamp duty value. However, for the audit fee, the assessee was in default, but the interest computation was remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that in the nature of the assessee's business (infrastructure construction), it is difficult to maintain a day-to-day stock register. Since the assessee furnished audited books, receipts were through banking channels, and no other defects were found by the AO in the books, sales, or expenditure, the rejection of books solely for non-maintenance of stock register was not justified. The Tribunal, relying on precedents, deleted the impugned addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of material and plot development expenses, finding they were correctly borne by RNTC. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on commission expenses, holding that they were not justified under the agreement.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for limited verification regarding the cash trail of payments. If a cash-back trail is established, disallowance will be made accordingly; otherwise, it will be restricted to the embedded profit element.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, directing the assessee to comply with all notices and submit relevant documents without seeking adjournments. A cost of Rs. 1,000 was imposed on the assessee to be deposited into the "Prime Minister Relief Fund." The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the information from GST authorities constituted tangible material for forming a prima facie belief of escaped income. Regarding the addition under Section 69C, the Tribunal acknowledged that when sales are not disputed and payments are made through banking channels, a full disallowance of purchases solely on the ground of the supplier being non-genuine is not justified. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to Rs. 7,00,184/-. However, considering the assessee's concession for limited verification regarding a potential cash trail between the supplier and the assessee, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to verify if payments made by the assessee were withdrawn in cash by the supplier. If a cash trail is established and funds are shown to be routed back, the AO can make a full or partial disallowance. If no cash-back trail is found, the addition shall be restricted to the embedded profit element, with a 5% profit estimation as adopted by the CIT(A) being considered reasonable. Additionally, the AO must verify an outstanding balance of Rs. 15,09,016/- on purchases and factor it appropriately. The appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 129 days in filing the appeals, finding the explanation of procedural unfamiliarity and lack of digital access to be reasonable and arising from bona fide circumstances, aligning with the principle of liberal construction of 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal set aside both impugned orders of the CIT(Exemption) and restored the matters for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was that the orders were passed without considering the crucial fact that the assessee already held a valid registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(i) valid till AY 2026-27, which materially affected the maintainability of the application under clause (iii). The CIT(Exemption) also failed to note this fact. The procedural lapse of non-response to notices was accepted as bona fide due to lack of portal access and digital literacy. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemption) to consider the existing registration, examine the maintainability of the section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) application, re-examine the merits of the section 80G(5)(iii) application with documents now on record, and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for procedural indifference. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that if the Superannuation Fund is found to be approved and the payment was made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the disallowance should be deleted. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the AO for verification of the fund's approval.
The Tribunal noted that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer were allowed to examine the details and explanations. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.