Loading ITAT cases…
103 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked revisionary powers under section 263 as the AO had made a conscious decision after examining the facts. The additional income offered was related to business expenditure and not from any undisclosed source requiring assessment under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the assessee's request for withdrawal, supported by a rectification order from the TPO dated 16.06.2023. This rectification order had led to the deletion of the adjustment that formed the basis of the original appeal. The Tribunal heard both parties and, acknowledging the rectification and the assessee's request, proceeded to dismiss the appeal. No other issues were decided on merits. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked revisionary powers under section 263 as the AO had made a conscious decision after examining the facts. The additional income offered was related to business expenditure and not from any undisclosed source requiring assessment under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation at 60% on computer servers, software, and networking equipment, following High Court precedents. It also directed the AO to recompute deduction under Section 10AA based on Supreme Court rulings regarding expenses in foreign currency. Issues of foreign tax credit and MAT credit were remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration, directing the CIT to provide three effective opportunities for the assessee to present its case and submit requisite documents.
The Tribunal held that while purchases from unregistered dealers might not be fully allowable, only the profit element should be added to income. For transportation charges, where evidence was lacking, an estimation was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive the second notice of hearing in time and therefore failed to present its case. It was deemed appropriate to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo verification of the sale of the ancestral land and the property at HSR Layout, including verifying the receipt of sale consideration and the TDS details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo verification of the sale of the ancestral land and the property at HSR Layout, including verifying the receipt of sale consideration and the TDS details.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not follow CBDT circulars regarding verification of cash deposits during demonetization. The case was remanded to the AO to verify the genuineness of the deposits and provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's adjournment request and without providing a proper opportunity of being heard. The matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of Section 54F deduction to the Assessing Officer for verification of the stipulated conditions. The computation of the deduction was to be based on the quantified capital gains, which were also subject to a separate remand.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's plea regarding the long-term capital gain being wrongly included in business receipts needed verification. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of gratuity fund provision to the AO for fresh examination and upheld the disallowance of PF/ESI employee contributions based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The contention regarding the scope of Section 143(1)(a) was also rejected.
The Tribunal held that notional interest on receivables is an international transaction. It also considered the issue of depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation, referencing various legal decisions.
The Tribunal held that notional interest on receivables is an international transaction. It also considered the issue of depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation, referencing various legal decisions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not participate before the NFAC, leading to an ex-parte decision. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the NFAC for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had paid all taxes before the due date and faced genuine technical glitches in filing the return, the interest levied under Section 234A was not justified. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this interest.
The Tribunal decided on the grounds as follows: Regarding the exclusion of Hartron Communications Ltd., the Tribunal, following the decisions of co-ordinate benches and the case of M/s. Cameron Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd., held that Hartron Communications Ltd. cannot be considered a comparable company due to its diversified activities and extraordinary profits in the impugned year. The AO/TPO was directed to exclude it. Regarding the PLI of Microland Limited and risk adjustment, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided a scientific basis or working for the claimed risk adjustment, despite mentioning it in the objections. Relying on the decision in Syniverse Teledata Systems (P.) Ltd. and Mercedez, the Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to risk adjustment and reversed the DRP's decision. This issue was remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration. On working capital adjustment, the Tribunal, referring to its earlier order in IT(TP)A No.2541/Bang/2017, directed the AO/TPO to pass a consequential order in conformity with the previous directions, which involved remanding the issue for calculation of working capital adjustment. Regarding the computation of tax on assessed income, since certain issues were remitted to the AO/TPO, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the tax liability accordingly. Concerning the levy of interest under section 234D, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to examine whether any refund was granted under section 143(1) and, if not, no interest under section 234D is to be charged.
The Tribunal held that the filing of an audit report implies the maintenance of books of accounts. The penalty was levied for non-production of books at the time of scrutiny, not for non-maintenance. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that not all demonetization deposits are unaccounted cash, but the assessee bears the burden to prove genuineness. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's claims based on relevant CBDT circulars regarding cash deposits and sales.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not respond to the initial intimation and the rectification request was rejected without a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CPC to provide an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 40,588/- towards belated employee contributions to PF/ESI is sustained, following the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services. However, other disallowances related to employer and employee contributions are remitted back to the AO for verification of actual payment dates.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 during the processing of the return under Section 143(1) was not permissible as it involved a debatable and controversial issue requiring deeper examination. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was entitled to exemption based on the subsequent registration.
The Tribunal held that the issue of consultation charges paid to Mrs. Sumalatha Ambarish needs to be re-examined by the AO. The assessee is directed to provide details of service tax returns filed by Mrs. Sumalatha, and the AO is to verify if the payments are included therein.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish written submissions.
The Tribunal decided on the grounds as follows: Grounds 2, 3, and 4, relating to transfer pricing adjustments, were dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee, who had entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) dated 23.03.2023. Ground 1 was considered general and not requiring adjudication. For Ground 5 (non-grant of foreign tax credit under Section 90), the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Ld. AO/TPO to consider the assessee's claim in accordance with law, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. For Ground 6 (levy of interest under Section 234A), the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Ld. AO to verify the claim that the return was filed within the due date and to consider it in accordance with law, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. For Grounds 7 & 8 (short grant of TDS credit and advance tax credit), the Tribunal remanded these issues back to the Ld. AO, directing the assessee to refile all relevant details and the Ld. AO to verify and consider the claim in accordance with law, allowing the grounds for statistical purposes. For Ground 9 (short grant of credit for refunds adjusted), the Tribunal directed the assessee to refile relevant details and the Ld. AO to verify and consider the claim, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. The judgment does not explicitly record decisions on grounds 10, 11, and 12 concerning interest under Sections 234B and 234C, and initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A, implying these were not pressed or decided on merits in this order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not furnish complete details regarding borrowed funds and loans advanced. Therefore, the issue of interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was remanded to the AO for verification. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) considering only investments yielding exempt income and not exceeding the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 40,588/- towards belated employee contributions to PF/ESI is sustained, following the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services. However, other disallowances related to employer and employee contributions are remitted back to the AO for verification of actual payment dates.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal, finding that all necessary facts were on record and no fresh investigation was required, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in NTPC Vs. CIT. The Tribunal observed that there were variations in the figures mentioned in the show cause notice dated July 13, 2021, and the order passed under section 92CA(3) dated July 30, 2021. The Tribunal held that the TPO is duty-bound to pass an order in conformity with the show cause notice issued, after considering the assessee's reply. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the file of the TPO to pass orders in accordance with the show cause notice, after considering the assessee's reply. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating on other grounds raised by the assessee on merits. The operative direction was to remand the issue to the TPO.
The Tribunal held that since the bonus amount was paid before the due date for filing the return of income, it satisfied the conditions of Section 43B. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits. It further held that Section 234E was introduced prospectively from 01.06.2015 and therefore, the levy of late fees for the years in question was bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Principal Officer was not conversant with the ITBA portal and requested another opportunity to be heard by the NFAC. The Tribunal acceded to this request and remitted the entire issue back to the NFAC for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for non-compliance before the NFAC. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed Form 3CL during the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A) and that there were procedural lapses in the transfer of documents. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits. It further held that Section 234E was introduced prospectively from 01.06.2015 and therefore, the levy of late fees for the years in question was bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits. It further held that Section 234E was introduced prospectively from 01.06.2015 and therefore, the levy of late fees for the years in question was bad in law.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of ESI/PF disallowance to the AO for verification of documents and directed the assessee to provide evidence of timely deposit. For the demonetization cash deposits, the AO was instructed to verify details based on applicable CBDT circulars and instructions, considering the burden on the assessee to prove genuineness.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions, decided to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer to determine if the assessee acted bona fide or was instigated by the tax consultant. If the assessee is found to be bona fide, no penalty shall be levied.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions, decided to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer to determine if the assessee acted bona fide or was instigated by the tax consultant. If the assessee is found to be bona fide, no penalty shall be levied.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions, decided to remand the issue to the Assessing Officer to determine if the assessee acted bona fide or was instigated by the tax consultant. If the assessee is found to be bona fide, no penalty shall be levied.
The Tribunal held that the issue of penalty under Section 270A needed reconsideration, especially regarding the assessee's bonafide belief and the role of the tax consultant. The matter was remitted to the NFAC for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the issue of penalty under Section 270A needed reconsideration, especially regarding the assessee's bonafide belief and the role of the tax consultant. The matter was remitted to the NFAC for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the time limit provided in sub-section (3A) of Section 92CA is mandatory for the passing of an order under Section 92CA(3) by the TPO. Following the interpretation by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Tribunal calculated the period of 60 days prior to the time limit under Section 153(1). For AY 2010-11, the due date for passing the assessment order was 31.03.2014, making the TPO's order due by 29.01.2014. For AY 2011-12, the due date was 31.03.2015, making the TPO's order due by 29.01.2015. Since the TPO passed the orders on 30.01.2014 and 30.01.2015, which were beyond the mandatory 60-day period, the orders were held to be time-barred and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal reasoned that the word 'may' in the context of time limits should be construed as 'shall', and the time period must be scrupulously followed, as indicated by the scheme of the Act and judicial pronouncements. The ratio decidendi is that the time limits prescribed for TPO orders under Section 92CA(3A) are mandatory, and failure to adhere to them renders the order invalid. Consequently, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in both assessment years was allowed. As the TPO's order was quashed, the issues on merits became academic.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was permitted to accept demonetized notes, they failed to prove the source of the cash deposit. To provide an opportunity for the assessee to prove the source, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the time limit provided in sub-section (3A) of Section 92CA is mandatory for the passing of an order under Section 92CA(3) by the TPO. Following the interpretation by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Tribunal calculated the period of 60 days prior to the time limit under Section 153(1). For AY 2010-11, the due date for passing the assessment order was 31.03.2014, making the TPO's order due by 29.01.2014. For AY 2011-12, the due date was 31.03.2015, making the TPO's order due by 29.01.2015. Since the TPO passed the orders on 30.01.2014 and 30.01.2015, which were beyond the mandatory 60-day period, the orders were held to be time-barred and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal reasoned that the word 'may' in the context of time limits should be construed as 'shall', and the time period must be scrupulously followed, as indicated by the scheme of the Act and judicial pronouncements. The ratio decidendi is that the time limits prescribed for TPO orders under Section 92CA(3A) are mandatory, and failure to adhere to them renders the order invalid. Consequently, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee in both assessment years was allowed. As the TPO's order was quashed, the issues on merits became academic.
The Tribunal deleted additions made towards unaccounted cash receipts, finding them to be unsubstantiated. However, it upheld additions made at 8% on contract receipts through banking channels as reasonable profit estimation.
The Tribunal deleted additions made towards unaccounted cash receipts, finding them to be unsubstantiated. However, it upheld additions made at 8% on contract receipts through banking channels as reasonable profit estimation.
The Tribunal deleted additions made towards unaccounted cash receipts, finding them to be unsubstantiated. However, it upheld additions made at 8% on contract receipts through banking channels as reasonable profit estimation.
The Tribunal deleted additions made towards unaccounted cash receipts, finding them to be unsubstantiated. However, it upheld additions made at 8% on contract receipts through banking channels as reasonable profit estimation.