Loading ITAT cases…
211 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the transfer order passed by the CIT was illegal due to non-communication of reasons and lack of opportunity for the assessee to object. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153A and the subsequent assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper inquiries and accepted the assessee's estimated income based on the facts. The PCIT's view that the AO's order was erroneous was based on a misinterpretation of the assessee's submission and lacked sufficient grounds for revision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim of deposits being from earlier withdrawals was not substantiated and that the sequence of transactions was contrary to the assessee's submission. However, accepting the principle of peak credit, the Tribunal restricted the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the file of the AO with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for each appeal, directing the assessee to cooperate and produce necessary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the file of the AO with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for each appeal, directing the assessee to cooperate and produce necessary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC's observation of non-compliance was contested by the assessee, who claimed to have submitted relevant documents. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to remand the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh consideration, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is granted to the assessee. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- per assessment year was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's business falls under 'agency business' as per Section 44AD(6)(iii) of the Act, making the presumptive taxation provisions inapplicable. Consequently, the revised return, which was based on these provisions, was not considered valid under Section 139(5) of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that the assessee had subsequently obtained the desired registration under sections 12AB and 80G. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals, which the Tribunal allowed, dismissing the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to remand the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh consideration, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is granted to the assessee. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- per assessment year was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper inquiries and accepted the assessee's estimated income based on the facts. The PCIT's view that the AO's order was erroneous was based on a misinterpretation of the assessee's submission and lacked sufficient grounds for revision.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted proper inquiries and accepted the assessee's estimated income based on the facts. The PCIT's view that the AO's order was erroneous was based on a misinterpretation of the assessee's submission and lacked sufficient grounds for revision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors., emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal found no malafide intention and noted that the delay was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control.
The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to remand the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh consideration, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is granted to the assessee. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- per assessment year was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect. The income from the liquor business was earned and assessed in the hands of the assessee's son, Manoj Kumar, who operated the bar and accounted for the purchases and sales.
The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to remand the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh consideration, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is granted to the assessee. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- per assessment year was imposed on the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not possess the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide cases on their merits. Consequently, the ITAT restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity for hearing and then decide the issue on its merits.
The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to remand the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh consideration, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard is granted to the assessee. A token cost of Rs. 5,000/- per assessment year was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application. It found that the activities were not demonstrably non-genuine, donations from related parties do not automatically impeach genuineness, and delays in commercial transactions do not negate charitable character.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 126 days, citing the assessee's age, her son's death, her husband's illness, and her own depression and anxiety. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' order and remitted the issue to the AO for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduct expenses incurred in earning interest income taxable under 'Income from Other Sources' as per Section 57 of the Act. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the deduction subject to substantiation by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the scope of verification under Section 12AB is limited to the genuineness of objects and activities, not a full assessment of transactions. It noted that delays in realizing sale proceeds due to commercial negotiations or external factors do not automatically render an arrangement a façade.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present its case and rebut the findings of the AO, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not adequately represent their case and had missed multiple opportunities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, granting the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte. Considering that the assessee was not properly represented and that relevant CBDT circulars were not considered, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing the notice under Section 153C was not correct, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the assessment made in the hands of the assessee was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is dismissed due to defective presentation and non-prosecution. The assessee failed to rectify defects pointed out by the Registry, did not condone the 754-day delay, and did not appear for the hearing.
The Tribunal acknowledged the mismatch and the assessee's new reconciliation. Noting that the AO had not properly verified the claim of using earlier year's funds, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter to the AO for fresh examination and verification of the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for cash payments to employees, stating they were part of salary and allowances and the P&L account debits were sufficient. For reward points, it was held that as they were utilized for fuel purchases and not received as cash or bank credit, they did not constitute income. Additions for parking charges were deleted as the assessee had offered some income and the AO's disallowance solely for lack of confirmation was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back for a fresh decision on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unable to represent its case properly before the lower authorities due to management changes. It was also acknowledged that the gross receipts were below Rs.1 Crore, making the income potentially exempt. However, these facts were not examined by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for cash payments to employees, stating they were part of salary and allowances and the P&L account debits were sufficient. For reward points, it was held that as they were utilized for fuel purchases and not received as cash or bank credit, they did not constitute income. Additions for parking charges were deleted as the assessee had offered some income and the AO's disallowance solely for lack of confirmation was not justified.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for cash payments to employees, stating they were part of salary and allowances and the P&L account debits were sufficient. For reward points, it was held that as they were utilized for fuel purchases and not received as cash or bank credit, they did not constitute income. Additions for parking charges were deleted as the assessee had offered some income and the AO's disallowance solely for lack of confirmation was not justified.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for cash payments to employees, stating they were part of salary and allowances and the P&L account debits were sufficient. For reward points, it was held that as they were utilized for fuel purchases and not received as cash or bank credit, they did not constitute income. Additions for parking charges were deleted as the assessee had offered some income and the AO's disallowance solely for lack of confirmation was not justified.
The Tribunal noted the submissions made by the authorized representative of the assessee. The assessee had applied for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had paid the tax amount as quantified under the scheme. The assessee was awaiting the certificate. Based on these submissions, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal pending before it. The Tribunal also granted the assessee the liberty to approach the Tribunal again if the issue was not settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that for a transfer to be considered under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, there must be a written agreement and possession must be delivered in pursuance thereof. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. LRS. vs. Suresh Chand & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6377 of 2012) and Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana has clarified that a sale of immovable property can only be made by a registered instrument (sale deed). An agreement of sale, even with possession, does not confer title or transfer interest, except for the limited right under Section 53A of the TP Act. Furthermore, a General Power of Attorney (POA) does not ipso facto constitute an instrument of transfer of immovable property and does not change its character into a conveyance deed. In the present case, there was no registered agreement of sale during the relevant Assessment Year, and the POA was an unregistered document. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no transfer as per Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, and consequently, no capital gains under Section 45 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The other grounds regarding enhancement of capital gains, deduction for land acquisition and eviction, disallowance of interest, and interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were not decided as the primary issue of transfer was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Ld.DR did not object to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to approach the Tribunal again if the issue remained unsettled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to provide the assessee with a show cause notice or an opportunity for personal hearing before rejecting the application, which violates the principles of natural justice and Section 12AB of the Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issue concerning interest on outstanding dues from AEs beyond 60 days was not raised before the TPO or DRP. However, it agreed that if a working capital adjustment were granted, no separate addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal noted that the TPO did not mention any working capital adjustment while computing the ALP and that there was no finding that the difference in working capital between comparables and the assessee did not impact the margin. The Tribunal also found that the TPO's adoption of SBI PLR for benchmarking interest on invoices raised in USD was incorrect, especially when the TPO himself noted that benchmarking should be based on the currency of billing. The DRP's direction to adopt LIBOR was also deemed erroneous. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the statement submitted by the assessee regarding R. Systems International Ltd. and, if found reliable and functionally comparable, to include it. For Consilient Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the facts and decide in accordance with law, noting that the export filter issue was not argued before the DRP. Regarding interest on overdue outstanding, the AO was directed to compute it by adopting appropriate benchmarking rates based on invoices, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds 23 & 24 were partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted an application for condonation of delay with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, including financial difficulties, absence from India, and non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal acknowledged the significant delay of 98 days. However, the judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the Tribunal's decision on the issues raised. Specifically, the findings on the condonation of delay, the addition under Section 69A, the tax under Section 115BBE, and the interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C are not present in the excerpt. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision and the operative directions are not ascertainable from the provided text.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. It also clarified that the assessee could apply for restoration of the appeal if the settlement later becomes invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. was misplaced as the relevant statute (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act) recognizes nominal members. The Tribunal further examined the disallowance of interest income from deposits, partly allowing the deduction and remitting the matter for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the 7-month delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to Covid-19, citing the Supreme Court's judgment. On merits, the Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is procedural and not mandatory, and denial of FTC for a late filing is unjustified, especially when sections 90 and 91 grant a substantive right.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO for delayed deposit of employee PF and ESI contributions is correct. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that some payments were made within the due dates and set aside the issue to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from statutory deposits mandated by the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act is operational income derived in the course of business and qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The AO is directed to re-examine the quantum of deposits and allow the deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay of 132 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The assessee's primary argument for condonation was based on the non-receipt of the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order, coupled with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee claimed that the notices were sent to an email ID not in use and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding the delay and the reasons provided, including the reliance on Supreme Court orders for exclusion of time during the pandemic. However, the provided text of the judgment is incomplete and does not contain the Tribunal's final decision on the issues raised or the operative directions. Therefore, what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning, and the ratio decidendi are not ascertainable from the given extract. Any issue expressly left undecided cannot be identified.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on surplus funds, not immediately required for business operations and invested with the primary intention of earning interest, is not attributable to the core business activities of providing credit facilities. Therefore, such interest income is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. was misplaced as the relevant statute (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act) recognizes nominal members. The Tribunal further examined the disallowance of interest income from deposits, partly allowing the deduction and remitting the matter for verification.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidences submitted by the assessee, stating there was sufficient reason for their late submission due to circumstances beyond control and directions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The issue was remitted back to the AO for examination and decision.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of contract farming income being agricultural income is sub-judice before the Supreme Court, with coordinate benches remanding the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the Supreme Court's decision. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.