Loading ITAT cases…
243 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not produce the required details before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the issue was remitted to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. A token cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee due to continued negligence.
The Tribunal held that orders giving effect to directions, which include levies of interest under Section 220(2), are appealable. The CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits instead of dismissing them.
On the issue of interest on delayed receivables, the Tribunal held that it is appropriate to apply 6 months LIBOR + 115 basis points for computing the interest. The Tribunal clarified that a credit period of 30 days is allowed, not 90 days as per MAP authorities. The reasoning was that MAP proceedings were for earlier Assessment Years (2014-15 to 2016-17) and not for subsequent years, and that time and circumstances change, giving MAP guidelines only persuasive, not binding, value. On the issue of denial of deduction under Section 80G, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to consider the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 7/2010 and examine whether the payments were towards CSR or charitable activities. The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench decision in Allegis Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, which held that an assessee cannot be denied the benefit of Chapter VI-A deductions for computing 'Total Taxable Income' merely because the payment forms part of CSR, as this could lead to double disallowance. The AO is directed to grant deduction to the extent of eligibility after verifying the necessary conditions.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal, which was filed due to the pendency of a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) application. The assessee expressed its intention to seek resolution through the MAP process and requested liberty to re-appeal before the Tribunal if the issue was not resolved. The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's request and the ongoing MAP process, decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to file a fresh appeal before it in case the issue is not resolved under the MAP. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that neither the TPO nor the DRP had addressed the crucial issue of the FAR test for selecting comparables to benchmark the international transactions. It was an admitted fact that the assessee had obtained RBI approvals for payments to its AE. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the TPO should re-examine the case afresh, applying the FAR test for selecting comparables. The Tribunal referred to the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT Vs. GE Technology (2021), which held that RBI-prescribed rates are a relevant factor in determining the applicable interest rate for commercial borrowings. The TPO was directed to examine the case in light of these observations. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
On the issue of AMP expenses, the Tribunal observed that the assessee contended it had already considered AMP expenses while determining the ALP of international transactions in the distribution segment at the entity level. This factual aspect required verification by the TPO. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the TPO to examine whether these expenses were already considered in the distribution segment's ALP. If they were, no further disallowance would be called for. The Tribunal explicitly left the issue of whether AMP transactions are international transactions open, without delving into its legality. Regarding the disallowance of earnest money, the Tribunal held that the DRP had wrongly remitted this issue to the TPO instead of the AO, as it pertained to corporate tax and the TPO had no role. The issue was restored to the file of the AO for fresh examination, with directions to grant relief if the assessee could establish the nature of the transaction.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 148 as the assessee had not filed a return of income originally and filed it belatedly after the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's legal grounds regarding jurisdiction and procedural lapses, stating that the case laws relied upon were distinguishable as they involved timely filing of returns. On the issue of cost of improvement, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) discarded the registered valuer's report without seeking counter-comments from the Departmental Valuation Officer, which is contrary to established legal principles, citing Swati Industrial Estate vs. CIT. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration. However, to provide justice, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the benefit of cost of improvement by applying a rate of Rs. 800 per sq. ft. to the 918 sq. ft. area mentioned in the sale deed. Regarding the Section 54 exemption, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, directing the AO to ascertain if the two adjacent houses were converted into a single unit, with a common kitchen and occupied by one family. If these conditions were met, the assessee would be entitled to the deduction.
The Tribunal held that orders giving effect to directions, which include levies of interest under Section 220(2), are appealable. The CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits instead of dismissing them.
The Tribunal held that orders giving effect to directions, which include levies of interest under Section 220(2), are appealable. The CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits instead of dismissing them.
The Tribunal held that orders giving effect to directions, which include levies of interest under Section 220(2), are appealable. The CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits instead of dismissing them.
The Tribunal held that orders giving effect to directions, which include levies of interest under Section 220(2), are appealable. The CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits instead of dismissing them.
The Tribunal held that orders giving effect to directions, which include levies of interest under Section 220(2), are appealable. The CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits instead of dismissing them.
The Tribunal held that orders giving effect to directions, which include levies of interest under Section 220(2), are appealable. The CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits instead of dismissing them.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for agricultural expenses despite opportunities. Therefore, the AO's estimation of expenses based on previous years' averages and disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that orders giving effect to directions, which include levies of interest under Section 220(2), are appealable. The CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits instead of dismissing them.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not follow the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the GKN Drive Shaft case and that the assessment proceedings were bad in law. The Tribunal quashed the proceedings and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that orders giving effect to directions, which include levies of interest under Section 220(2), are appealable. The CIT(A) should have considered the appeals on merits instead of dismissing them.
The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) had remitted the issue to the AO. Since the assessee claimed TDS as per Form 26AS and receipts were offered in the return, the Tribunal directed the AO to follow the directions of the learned CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee by issuing notices with very short response times. Furthermore, the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's profit ratio chart for comparable years and wrongly used later years' data for comparison.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of coolie & labour charges and farm expenses was not justified. It noted that the AO's remand report confirmed the expenses were reasonable and common in the business, and that self-made vouchers were acceptable in such circumstances, especially when they represented a small percentage of the turnover.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without properly considering the grounds and that the AO also did not adequately consider the assessee's explanation. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, finding the assessee's reasons to be genuine and bona fide. The Tribunal emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delays when it obstructs substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's declared income from business/profession was higher than the TDS claimed, and as per Rule 37BA read with Section 199 of the Act, the assessee is eligible for the full TDS credit. The lower authorities' observations were considered perverse.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, finding the assessee's reasons to be genuine and bona fide. The Tribunal emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delays when it obstructs substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, as they fit the definition of a 'co-operative society'. The matter was set aside to the AO for re-adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue raised no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal noted that the facts were identical to a previous case where the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the jurisdictional AO to verify withdrawals and decide the issue, and to give relief if the assessee received no financial benefit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be genuine health problems and not intentional negligence. The Tribunal set aside the assessment orders and restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, granting both parties a fair opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the bank debit was explained as an investment in fixed deposits, and the food expenses were accounted for without any allegation of misuse. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be genuine health problems and not intentional negligence. The Tribunal set aside the assessment orders and restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, granting both parties a fair opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be genuine health problems and not intentional negligence. The Tribunal set aside the assessment orders and restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, granting both parties a fair opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be genuine health problems and not intentional negligence. The Tribunal set aside the assessment orders and restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, granting both parties a fair opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be genuine health problems and not intentional negligence. The Tribunal set aside the assessment orders and restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, granting both parties a fair opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be genuine health problems and not intentional negligence. The Tribunal set aside the assessment orders and restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, granting both parties a fair opportunity.
The Tribunal held that societies registered under the Karnataka Souharda Society Act are at par with societies registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and are eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be genuine health problems and not intentional negligence. The Tribunal set aside the assessment orders and restored the matters back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, granting both parties a fair opportunity.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Section 250(1) of the Act by passing an ex parte order without issuing a notice of hearing to the assessee. The order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the funds accumulated were consistent with the trust's stated objectives and not solely for infrastructure development. The reversal of interest income was considered an accounting entry to rectify a past error and should not be taxed. The rental income mismatch issue was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not examine the issue of exemption under the RFCTLARR Act and Circular No. 36/2016 in detail. The eligibility for deduction under Section 54D was also not properly examined.
The Tribunal noted that the eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) depends on various facts, including the type of members, their rights, and whether the society operates on mutuality principles. Citing previous Tribunal orders and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 178 days, finding the cause genuine and reasonable. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside as it was passed without proper service of notice and in violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, setting aside the NFAC order. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication, with a direction for proper hearing and a reasoned order. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period were explained as collections from sundry debtors, which were part of the regular business sales. The AO's action of treating these as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act and levying penalty was incorrect. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that taxing the same amount twice was not permissible.