Loading ITAT cases…
130 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity to produce documents and that an employee had left the company. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for denovo consideration, with a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not passed the order in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, and sufficient opportunity may not have been granted. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee could not submit the details due to circumstances beyond their control, despite holding 80G recognition since 2008. Granting one more opportunity would not prejudice any party.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations to the AO and the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue of the seized cash was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that once expenses are proven to be genuine with documentary evidence, there is no provision for ad-hoc disallowances. Since similar expenses were allowed in a previous year assessed under Section 143(3), the partial disallowance by the CIT(A) was not legally correct.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the Revenue did not file a counter-affidavit and the NFAC order confirmed the unavailability of the CIT(A)'s order. Regarding the main issue, the Tribunal held that the AO's adoption of the NAV method over the DCF method lacked substantiation. The Tribunal cited judicial precedents, including a Delhi High Court judgment, which upheld the DCF method when it meets Rule 11UA criteria and stated that the AO cannot change the method but can scrutinize its working.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments made to ALP cannot be added back to book profit under Section 115JB. It also directed the deletion of an addition made contrary to DRP directions.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in considering the additional evidence and deleting the addition. The AO should have called for further information if he had doubts instead of making the addition.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses incurred for business purposes are deductible even if they incidentally benefit a third party, such as the brand owner who is also the director. The Tribunal also noted that admissions made under duress during search proceedings, without corroborative evidence, are not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the AO's questionnaire was not specific regarding the required documentary evidence for both foreign travelling expenses and trade payables. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted both issues back to the AO for fresh examination.
On the issue of selling, marketing, and distribution expenses, the Tribunal noted that the identical issue in AY 2016-17 was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, and a similar order was passed in the assessee's own case. As the facts were identical and no contrary evidence or overruling by higher forums was presented, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. Regarding the entrance fee and club service expenditure, the Tribunal found that the AO exceeded jurisdiction by making the addition contrary to the DRP's direction. The DRP had allowed the objection in favour of the assessee, directing the AO not to make the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, allowing the ground. Concerning the adjustment to book profit under Section 115JB, the Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision in Normunra Research Institute Financial Technologies India Pvt Ltd, which followed the Delhi Tribunal's ruling in M/s. Cash Edge India (Pvt.) Ltd. It was held that transfer pricing adjustments are not among the specified adjustments under Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) and therefore cannot be added back to book profits. The Tribunal set aside the finding and directed the AO to delete the addition, allowing the ground.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal is hit by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, which allows dismissal of pending appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 60 Lakhs. The Revenue's counsel admitted the applicability of this circular.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get an opportunity to demonstrate reasonable cause for the default. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was illegal and bad in law as it violated principles of natural justice by not providing the remand report or an opportunity to the assessee to file objections. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for a fresh examination by the AO and the undertaking to cooperate. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for de novo reassessment, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued only three notices in a single month, which might not have provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to appear and respond. However, considering the directions from CIT(A) to the AO to obtain TDS details and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give one last opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's status as a senior citizen and not tech-savvy. On merit, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-maintainability due to non-payment of advance tax, which was incorrect as the assessee, being a senior citizen with no business income, was immune from such payment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 33 days, preferring substantial justice over technicality, citing Apex Court judgments. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not consider relevant CBDT circulars regarding demonetization and passed the order ex-parte.
The Tribunal noted that the authorities below did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) also did not consider additional evidence due to non-compliance with Rule 46A. The Tribunal opined that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate his claim.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's initial appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed for lack of evidence, and the present appeal was filed with a delay of 198 days due to the assessee's lack of technical expertise and reliance on a former consultant. The Tribunal, referencing Apex Court judgments on condoning delay in the interest of substantial justice, decided to condone the delay.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 60 lakhs, is applicable to pending appeals. Since the tax effect in this case was below the revised limit, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided an affidavit explaining the withdrawal of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 10.12.2014 for anticipated medical expenses of family members and its subsequent redeposit during the demonetization period. The Tribunal found that the source and creditworthiness of the cash deposit were sufficiently established, and the authorities below failed to produce material to disprove the assessee's claim.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting it was attributable to the auditor and not the assessee. The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's submissions without providing any reasoned order, which is contrary to the law.
The Tribunal held that for a penalty under section 271(1)(c) to be sustainable, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Since the AO failed to specify the charge, the penalty is not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT vs. Golden Peas Holiday and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not represent their case effectively before the AO and CIT(A) due to health issues. The CIT(A) also did not consider the evidence submitted. Therefore, to ensure justice, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee contended that it had uploaded requisite details which were not considered. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal held that denying the cost of construction for a sold villa, when it was part of the original assessment, was not a mistake apparent from the record. Rectification under Section 154 was therefore not justified.
The Tribunal held that the denial of benefit of opening cash in hand out of agricultural income of earlier years was not valid, as the assessee is an agriculturist. It was also observed that the estimation of agricultural expenditure by the AO lacked sound logic and evidence.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without looking into the documentary evidence filed by the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh examination and to grant meaningful opportunities to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not received possession nor executed a sale deed. It was also observed that the dispute between the builder and landowners, cited as the reason for delay, was not examined by the lower authorities.
The assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a delay of 68 days, citing reasons such as business discontinuation and pending court cases, and difficulty in coordinating records. The FAA dismissed the appeal due to the delay, finding no sufficient cause.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, citing the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh proceedings, with a condition of cooperation from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the case was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's lack of representation. The learned counsel undertook to comply with requirements if given a chance. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made by the AO. The revenue appealed this decision, arguing that the CIT(A) relied on fresh evidence without proper verification and violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) had not decided the issue raised by the assessee due to the manner in which the grounds of appeal were presented. The case was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the compensation was awarded after the enactment of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, the provisions of this Act, specifically Section 96, would apply. Consequently, the compensation received is exempt from income tax.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings are not fatal despite the mention of a wrong name in the assessment order, as the notice under section 143(2) and the demand notice were issued in the name of the correct entity, and the correct PAN number was also mentioned. Grounds 2, 4, and 5 were not pressed by the assessee. On the merits of the addition (Ground 6), the Tribunal noted the assessee's 'A' (Negative) credit rating. It referred to a Supreme Court decision in Dharampal & Ors for the principle that interest rates depend on prevailing bank rates. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's auditors reported 16% for 'A' rating companies in 2015 and 12% for NCDs in 2019. Considering the assessment year (FY 2019-20), the Tribunal found that RBI guidelines mention rates for AAA and 'A' categories but not 'A-'. Therefore, it concluded that a 12% interest rate, equivalent to SBI + 100 basis points, was justifiable for the year under consideration, not the 2015 rate relied upon by the assessee. The Tribunal distinguished the case laws relied upon by the assessee, stating they pertained to 'issue of interest on receivables' or older assessment years with higher interest rates. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the orders of the TPO and AO and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and fair play, and the undertaking by the assessee's counsel for future cooperation, decided to restore the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the assessee for their negligent approach.
The Tribunal held that the matter requires remand to the AO for recomputation of capital gains. The AO had erroneously taken the cost of acquisition as FMV. The Tribunal noted that the assessee relied on a Merchant Banker's report based on insufficient information, and the Merchant Banker did not conduct effective due diligence. The AO rejected the report but did not refer the matter to the valuation department. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute capital gains considering Section 9(1)(i) read with Explanations 5 & 6, and Rules 11UB and 11UC. Crucially, the AO must examine compliances with Section 285A, Rule 114DB, Form No. 49D, and the audit report in Form 3CT. Regarding the date for FMV computation, the AO must verify if the book value of assets on the transfer date (04.12.2018) exceeded the book value on the preceding accounting period end date (31.03.2018) by 15%, as stipulated in Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(i). For currency conversion, the AO is directed to apply the TT buying rate as per Rule 115. The Tribunal did not decide on the validity of the DRP's directions due to the absence of DIN, as the primary issues necessitated a remand.
The Tribunal held that the pharmacy run within the hospital premises is an integral part of the hospital's charitable activities and its income is eligible for exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal also noted that maintaining separate books is not the sole criterion for determining the nature of the activity.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 11(1)(a) should be calculated on gross receipts, not net surplus. It also ruled that income from the pharmacy, being integral to the hospital's charitable object, is eligible for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the six-year period for Section 153C proceedings should be reckoned from the date the seized documents were handed over to the assessee's jurisdictional AO, not the date of the original search. Therefore, AY 2015-16 was time-barred.
The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and fair play, and the undertaking by the assessee's counsel for future cooperation, decided to restore the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the assessee for their negligent approach.
The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice and fair play, and the undertaking by the assessee's counsel for future cooperation, decided to restore the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. A cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the assessee for their negligent approach.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without granting sufficient time. The dismissal of the quantum appeal was not final and the assessee had the right to challenge it. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A)'s reasoning for not granting time was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's documents were not submitted during assessment and the assessee failed to respond to CIT(A) notices. However, considering the assessee's prayer and the interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo reassessment.
The Tribunal held that since the compensation was awarded after the enactment of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, the provisions of this Act, specifically Section 96, would apply. Consequently, the compensation received is exempt from income tax.
The Tribunal held that income covered by DTAA rates should not be included for calculating the surcharge rate. Surcharge is applicable on the tax on business income, but not on the tax on DTAA income.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided some substantiation, she failed to fully prove the source of funds from all parties. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further verification.