Loading ITAT cases…
105 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that while the reassessment proceedings were valid due to directions from higher authorities, the assessment in the hands of the HUF was invalid because the HUF had disrupted prior to the assessment and had not been assessed in that status previously. The assessment order in the status of HUF was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was invalid because it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN) and did not comply with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 regarding manual issuance. Consequently, the order was deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal held that since the HUF was partitioned and had not been assessed in that status previously, the assessment in the hands of the HUF after disruption was invalid. The assessment order was quashed on this ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the DRP's deletion of additions. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal expunged the direction to initiate penalty proceedings and granted liberty to contest comparables in subsequent years, effectively disposing of the remaining issues due to the small quantum.
The Tribunal held that payments made to non-resident attorneys for professional services rendered outside India are not chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, the assessee was not obligated to deduct TDS under Section 195, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was invalid because it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN) and did not comply with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 regarding manual issuance. Consequently, the order was deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal held that since the HUF was partitioned and had not been assessed in that status previously, the assessment in the hands of the HUF after disruption was invalid. The assessment order was quashed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not question the source of cash deposits, which were admitted as sales. The Tribunal found no specific mandate in the relevant circular requiring the assessee to retain copies of prescriptions and identity proofs for record-keeping.
The Tribunal held that two comparables used by the TPO for the manufacturing segment should be excluded, directing a recomputation of ALP. The issue of interest on receivables was remitted to the AO for re-examination. The disallowance of secondment charges was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the DRP's deletion of additions. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal expunged the direction to initiate penalty proceedings and granted liberty to contest comparables in subsequent years, effectively disposing of the remaining issues due to the small quantum.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee should be given another opportunity for effective representation before the CIT(A). The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was invalid because it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN) and did not comply with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 regarding manual issuance. Consequently, the order was deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal remanded all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the AO regarding evidence filed by the assessee and to tax the sale consideration of land in the correct year along with related expenditures.
The Tribunal remanded all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the AO regarding evidence filed by the assessee and to tax the sale consideration of land in the correct year along with related expenditures.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted additional evidence. It directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo assessment for both years, considering the additional evidence and granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the AO made additions without issuing summons to verify the source of funds, despite the assessee providing confirmations and requesting summons. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the credits in question.
The Tribunal held that the actual outflow from the assessee for acquiring the property, including amounts paid under an assignment agreement and to the builder, cannot be ignored solely because the assignment agreement was unregistered. The matter was remitted to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions by providing documentation like FIRC certificates and bank remittances. It further clarified that the proviso to Section 68, requiring substantiation of the 'source of source of funds', is applicable only to resident shareholders, not non-resident investors.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 153(5) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the order was quashed as bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions by providing documentation like FIRC certificates and bank remittances. It further clarified that the proviso to Section 68, requiring substantiation of the 'source of source of funds', is applicable only to resident shareholders, not non-resident investors.
The Tribunal held that the deeds of deposit, which allowed the firm to sell the jewellery and return only an equivalent quantity of metal, indicated that the jewellery was treated as the firm's asset. The firm's revised balance sheet also reflected this jewellery as its asset.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficiently proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions by providing documentation like FIRC certificates and bank remittances. It further clarified that the proviso to Section 68, requiring substantiation of the 'source of source of funds', is applicable only to resident shareholders, not non-resident investors.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted additional evidence. It directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo assessment for both years, considering the additional evidence and granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that accumulated profits should be considered only up to the previous year (31.03.2010) and that only loans/advances received during the current assessment year should be considered for deemed dividend, excluding opening balances from earlier years. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-computation.
The Tribunal remanded all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report from the AO regarding evidence filed by the assessee and to tax the sale consideration of land in the correct year along with related expenditures.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's argument that the CIT(Appeals) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating Rule 46A. The issue of expenses was restored to the AO for fresh examination. For the addition under Section 41(1) concerning sundry creditors, the issue was remitted back to the AO for cross-examination of confirmations.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. It further held that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the provisions of the Income Tax Act and Rules. Therefore, FTC cannot be denied solely for the delay in filing Form 67.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of carry forward of loss was not an adjustment permissible under Section 143(1)(a) and that a revised return filed after declaring positive income in the original return is valid for claiming carry forward of loss.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF must be deposited before the due date under the relevant welfare legislation to be allowable, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The issue of club fees was remitted back to the AO for factual verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the explanation provided by the assessee and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without a proper opportunity of hearing and that additional evidence filed by the assessee was not properly considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be given for the assessment year in which the income is assessable, provided it is not claimed in any other year. The issue of taxing retention money was not explicitly decided in the provided excerpt but the appeal was partly allowed.
The ITAT clarified that the AO should consider the operating margin of the Associated Enterprise (AE) segment of the international transaction of the manufacturing segment while determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP). This determination should be based on external TNMM analysis where the AE segment is the tested party.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind and verified the cash deposit issue. The PCIT's view that further inquiry was needed was merely a difference of opinion, not an error prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263. The AO had conducted a detailed inquiry and treated the admitted additional income as business income, which was supported by the partner's statement. The PCIT's revision was considered an attempt to substitute his opinion and conduct a roving inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals without considering the merits or the representation filed by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the entire delay beyond the normally realizable period up to 150 days should be considered in determining the ALP of the international transaction, not as a separate transaction. The period of delay above 150 days should be considered a separate international transaction. The rate of interest should be based on the currency of repayment, not prime lending or SBI FD rates.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-verify the related party transactions for 'Icon Clinical Research India Pvt. Ltd.' and exclude 'Syngene International Ltd.' from comparables. It also allowed working capital adjustment and dismissed the ground regarding pass-through costs.
The Tribunal held that for Section 28(iv) to apply, income must accrue to the assessee, and hypothetical income cannot be taxed. While some assets received on loan were confirmed as taxable due to lack of re-export proof, relief was granted for assets with re-export documentation. The issue of other assets received on loan/free of cost was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The tribunal held that interest on delayed receivables should not be treated as a separate international transaction but factored into the ALP of the primary transaction. The matter was remitted to the TPO/AO for fresh determination of the addition on account of interest on delayed receivables, considering the currency of repayment for the interest rate.
The Tribunal held that turnover is a relevant criterion for selecting comparable companies in transfer pricing analysis. Following the view favorable to the assessee, it upheld the exclusion of companies with significantly higher turnover than the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest on delayed receivables can be an international transaction, but it needs to be assessed on a case-to-case basis considering working capital adjustments. If working capital adjustments subsume receivables, no separate characterization is needed.
The Tribunal held that the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee did not constitute an international transaction as there was no agreement with the associated enterprise (AE) to incur such expenses. Following its own prior decisions, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made on account of AMP expenses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, the Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF and ESI must be remitted before the due date under the relevant welfare legislation to be allowable under Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals without considering the merits or the representation filed by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals without considering the merits or the representation filed by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, stating that the AO's failure to refer the matter to the TPO, despite the assessment being selected on a transfer pricing risk parameter and in contravention of CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the issue of interest on delayed receivables should be remanded to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, considering specific guidelines. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute it by restricting it to investments yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that Explanation 5 to Section 32 of the Income Tax Act mandates that depreciation should be allowed even if not claimed in the return. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer has a duty to grant depreciation and should bring omissions to the assessee's notice.