Loading ITAT cases…
161 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the source of the cash deposits was explained as belonging to the employer company. However, the utilization of these funds and whether the assessee derived any personal benefit needed further verification.
The Tribunal noted that the issues in ITA No. 1930/Bang/2024 and CO No. 41/Bang/2025 are similar to those in ITA No. 1929/Bang/2024 and CO No. 40/Bang/2024. The Tribunal's decision in the former appeals would apply mutatis mutandis to the latter. The judgment states that the appeals are 'partly allowed for statistical purposes'. This implies that the Tribunal has made findings on the issues raised, but the specific details of the findings and the reasoning for each issue, including the operative directions, are not fully elaborated in the provided excerpt. However, the phrase 'partly allowed for statistical purposes' suggests that some relief was granted to the assessee, but not entirely in line with the CIT(A)'s order, or that certain aspects were decided in favour of the revenue. The specific findings on the deductibility of interest from co-operative banks, the allowability of NPA provisions, and the hybrid accounting system are not detailed in the provided text, beyond the mention of the appeals being partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of NPA provision should be remitted to the AO for re-computation, considering the CBDT circular regarding Chapter VI-A deductions. Regarding the provision for interest, the Tribunal found that the assessee's hybrid accounting system was not in accordance with Section 145 of the Income Tax Act and ICDS.
The Tribunal noted that as per the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, appeals pending before ITAT are deemed withdrawn upon issuance of the settlement certificate. Since all formalities were completed by the assessee, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay was not sufficient cause for condonation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not admitted due to the inordinate delay.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission of a medical certificate for the Trustee, indicating a reasonable cause for non-response. Consequently, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause and bonafide reasons presented by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not have the power to dismiss the appeal without discussing the merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the AO to examine the cash deposits and decide the issue, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for GST was unjustified as it was not routed through the P&L account and thus Section 43B was not attracted. The delay in PF deposit by one day due to a holiday was also condoned, allowing the deduction.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission of a medical certificate for the Trustee, indicating a reasonable cause for non-response. Consequently, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, which was only for the demonetisation period (Rs. 5,76,020). The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was not sustainable, as the appeal should have been decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee is taxed under the old regime, they should be allowed deductions available under the old regime, especially those not available under the new regime (Section 115BAC). The AO was directed to grant the benefit of deductions available under sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 115BAC.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can be made. The Explanation inserted to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective in nature.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in cancelling the registration and approval. It found that the assessee had commenced its activities and that the genuineness of activities, not the quantum of expenditure, is relevant for registration. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT's observations were contradictory.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18. Following that precedent, the Tribunal found no violation of Section 13 and upheld the assessee's entitlement to exemption.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the assessee's search. Since the AO relied on materials found in searches of third parties or other information, the jurisdiction under Section 153A was not properly invoked for an unabated assessment year.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) passed the cancellation order without considering the assessee's submissions made on the same date. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted both matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and asked to provide all necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the delay and decided the appeal on merits. Since the addition under Section 143(1)(a) was merged in the subsequent assessment under Section 143(3), the issue needs to be adjudicated by the CIT(A) after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in cancelling the registration and approval. It found that the assessee had commenced its activities and that the genuineness of activities, not the quantum of expenditure, is relevant for registration. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT's observations were contradictory.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18. Following that precedent, the Tribunal found no violation of Section 13 and upheld the assessee's entitlement to exemption.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and without seeking additional data or issuing a proper show cause notice. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) to decide afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(E) was bereft of reason and violated the principles of natural justice. The CIT(E) did not discuss the correct section code or the reasons for deeming the selected code as wrong. The Tribunal noted that the principle of 'right to reason' was not followed, and there was no disclosure of the authority's mind. Furthermore, the CIT(E) failed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by issuing a show cause notice before rejecting the application. The Tribunal opined that the assessee had likely applied for the correct section code for the first renewal. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, directing the CIT(E) to consider the application in Form 10AB filed on September 29, 2024, as having been filed in the correct section code and to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings.
As the issues and arguments are not detailed in the provided excerpt, the Tribunal's decision, reasoning, and ratio decidendi cannot be determined. Consequently, any operative directions such as remand or deletion, or the relief granted to the assessee, are also not ascertainable. The judgment does not record any specific findings on any issues, nor does it mention any issue being left undecided.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had cancelled the registration without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) cancelled the registration without providing a proper opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) passed the cancellation order without considering the assessee's submissions made on the same date. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted both matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and asked to provide all necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of additional evidence, as the bank statement was already with the AO. On merits, the Tribunal found that only cash withdrawals totaling Rs. 10,50,000 could be considered as substantiating the cash deposits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and without seeking additional data or issuing a proper show cause notice. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) to decide afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee made a technical mistake due to a typographical error in quoting the section code for registration. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT with directions to treat the application as filed under the correct section and consider it for grant of registration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the COVID period and the Manager's illness, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The appeals were set aside and remitted to the AO for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the COVID period and the Manager's illness, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The appeals were set aside and remitted to the AO for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court had condoned the delay in filing the return. Since the deduction claim was not examined by lower authorities, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the COVID period and the Manager's illness, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The appeals were set aside and remitted to the AO for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the TPO failed to grant sufficient time to the assessee and that the matter required fresh consideration at the TPO's end. The issue of TP adjustment concerning royalty paid by the assessee was restored to the file of the TPO for fresh determination. Regarding interest on receivables, the TPO was directed to examine this issue afresh. For the disallowance of Employee’s contribution of ESI & PF, the Tribunal noted that this issue is no longer res integra in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Checkmate Services, and thus, it did not require fresh consideration. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that issue number 1, concerning the SWD segment comparables, requires fresh consideration by the TPO. The contentions regarding the inclusion and exclusion of comparables were left open and would be examined by the TPO after applying appropriate filters. The Tribunal restored this issue to the TPO for fresh examination, with a direction to grant a meaningful opportunity to the assessee. For issue number 2, regarding outstanding receivables, the Tribunal found the assessee's argument that it is not an international transaction to be without force, citing existing judgments. However, the Tribunal found the TPO erred in applying LIBOR+450 basis points as the interest rate and modified it to LIBOR+200 basis points, directing the TPO to recalculate accordingly. For issue number 3, concerning intra-group services, the Tribunal held that this issue also requires fresh consideration by the TPO, particularly in light of the assessee's submissions regarding payments in earlier years and the global policy. The TPO was directed to compare the assessee's global policy and agreements to determine if the payments were in line with earlier payments and to observe whether the claim should be allowed based on the principle of consistency. Ground No. 10 was left open for the assessee to challenge before the TPO.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 should be applied for unexplained jewellery, leading to deletion of the addition for Mrs. Mehtab and partial relief for Mrs. Nadia. Regarding the property sale, the Tribunal ruled that the capital gain should be computed in the Assessment Year 2012-13, as the transfer date was 01.04.2011, but directed tax credit for taxes already paid for AY 2011-12.
The Tribunal noted that the trust was registered on 07.11.2021 and applied for registration on 24.08.2024. The reports from the jurisdictional AO and Range Head indicated that some expenditures were not in accordance with the trust deed and were high, with a questionable nexus to the charitable activity. The assessee was directed to amend its trust deed by 31.12.2024, but the amendment was made on 10.02.2025, leading to a delay in filing. The Tribunal observed significant expenditure under the electricity head (Rs. 37,52,794/- as of 31.03.2025) and noted that certain payables were shown under current liabilities. The Tribunal was of the view that the expenditure incurred and debited required in-depth examination with external vouchers. It was clarified that entries without external vouchers should not be treated as expenditure for the trust's objects. The Tribunal directed that the lower authorities would physically examine beneficiaries with their Aadhaar numbers, with the assessee's assistance. Consequently, the case was remitted back to the CIT(E) for examination, and the assessee was directed to substantiate its case with necessary documents without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly analyzed and excluded companies that were not comparable to the assessee for ALP determination based on various factors.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) providing the assessee with one more opportunity to represent their case, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The Tribunal held that additions based on statements alone, especially when retracted, and without corroborative evidence like unaccounted investments or rejected books, are not sustainable. Furthermore, assessments under section 153A for unabated years are invalid if no incriminating material specific to those years is found.
The Tribunal held that additions based on statements alone, especially when retracted, and without corroborative evidence like unaccounted investments or rejected books, are not sustainable. Furthermore, assessments under section 153A for unabated years are invalid if no incriminating material specific to those years is found.
The Tribunal held that additions based on statements alone, especially when retracted, and without corroborative evidence like unaccounted investments or rejected books, are not sustainable. Furthermore, assessments under section 153A for unabated years are invalid if no incriminating material specific to those years is found.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P as the return of income was filed belatedly, and the interest income from bank deposits was not attributable to the eligible business activity. The issue of provision for audit fee and interest expenses was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the withdrawal of both appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, finding it essential for a fair decision. The Tribunal then set aside the issue to the CIT(E) for reconsideration with the new evidence, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that additions based on statements alone, especially when retracted, and without corroborative evidence like unaccounted investments or rejected books, are not sustainable. Furthermore, assessments under section 153A for unabated years are invalid if no incriminating material specific to those years is found.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain comparable companies based on the upper turnover filter and also deleted the adjustment for interest on delayed receivables. The Tribunal found that some receivables were due in the subsequent financial year, thus not warranting an adjustment in the current year.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, finding it essential for a fair decision. The Tribunal then set aside the issue to the CIT(E) for reconsideration with the new evidence, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was justified. The primary issue revolved around the AO's reliance on the statement of Shri Giridhar Ladhha, which was later retracted, and the denial of the assessee's request for cross-examination. The Tribunal noted that retracted statements have little evidentiary value unless independently corroborated, citing P.M. Aboobacker vs. CIT. The AO did not produce additional material evidence to support the retracted statement. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that denying the assessee the right to cross-examine Shri Ladhha, whose statement was relied upon as primary evidence, violated the principles of natural justice, rendering the assessment invalid, as per Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE. The Tribunal also highlighted the absence of any evidence at the assessee's premises indicating cash investments, making it improbable that such a substantial amount was lent in cash without supporting documentation. The argument that other parties settled their disputes did not create a presumption against the assessee without direct evidence. Consequently, the principal addition under Section 69 was unsustainable, and the consequential addition of interest income also failed. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the cash belonged to the company M/s KDSPL and was not used for personal benefit by the assessee. The Tribunal found that no loan or advance was made by the company and the land purchase was made from personal bank accounts, not cash. Therefore, the conditions of section 2(22)(e) were not satisfied.