Loading ITAT cases…
169 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, stating that the assessee had sufficient cause due to the use of an inactive email and that the assessee was not negligent. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision on merits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that Section 69A of the Income-tax Act applies only to assets not recorded in the books of account. Since the assessee had recorded the disputed cash in his books, the provisions of Section 69A were incorrectly applied. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.11,52,165.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal for non-payment of advance tax was incorrect, as the assessee claimed no income and thus no advance tax was payable. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order was passed u/s 144 without hearing the assessee and decided to restore the appeal to the AO for fresh assessment after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted inconsistencies regarding the dates of issuance and service of the notice under Section 148, as well as the date of the assessment order. Due to these discrepancies and the fact that the assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the discrepancy in cash balances was due to an error in the printout generated from custom-made software, not in the assessee's regularly maintained books of accounts. Since the complete books of accounts showed no difference and were found to be without fault by lower authorities, the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits in SB notes by members, representing loan repayments and other deposits, properly recorded in the society's books and supported by member details and KYC, could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The Tribunal also noted that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not raised before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that disallowing Rs.2,45,141 of the cost of improvement was not proper, as the bills were for small items and the total cost was accepted. It also held that the commission paid was supported by confirmations and the recipients' returns, and disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition based on conjectures and surmises without conducting adequate inquiries or confronting the assessee with information. The Tribunal noted that the transportation methods were plausible for small businesses and that the invalidity of e-way bills did not automatically lead to the disallowance of purchases when GST credit was not withdrawn. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reasons cited by the CIT(E) for cancellation were not sustainable. The amendments to the trust deed were not repugnant to the Act, the loan repayment was adequately explained, and there was no concrete evidence of misuse of funds or non-genuine activities.
The Tribunal noted inconsistencies regarding the dates of issuance and service of the notice under Section 148, as well as the date of the assessment order. Due to these discrepancies and the fact that the assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal, as there was a reasonable cause. Furthermore, the rectification order u/s 154 was not sustainable as it was made without issuing a notice and contradicted the earlier assessment u/s 143(3) which had accepted the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to foreign tax credit as Form 67 was filed before the end of the assessment year and a prior CIT(A) order allowing the credit was not contested. The impugned order denying the credit was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by 3M India Limited for the assessment year 2009-10 as withdrawn. This decision was based on the assessee's letter dated 13.10.2025, requesting withdrawal due to the settlement of the disputed issues under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The settlement was supported by Form 1 dated 30.4.2025 and Form 2 dated 09.10.2025 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2. The assessee's authorized representative reiterated this request, and the Department's representative agreed. Consequently, the Tribunal found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal and dismissing the appeal. No specific issue was decided on merits; the operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the inclusion of comparable companies for software development services, the Tribunal noted that since it dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal, there was no need to adjudicate this ground of the assessee's appeal. Concerning the addition for fixed assets received free of cost for testing purposes, the Tribunal, respectfully following consistent views and decisions including its own case for AY 2010-11 and the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT v Novell Software Development India (P.) Ltd., directed the AO/TPO to adopt the Cash PLI. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal related to this issue. The operative direction was to dismiss the revenue's appeal and partly allow the assessee's appeal. The issue of notional interest on receivables was not explicitly decided by the Tribunal in the provided text, but the CIT(A)'s finding that no separate adjustment can be made if working capital adjustment is made was implicitly accepted by not being challenged by the revenue in the grounds of appeal discussed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause and no mala fide intent. On merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to grant a personal hearing and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that failure to file Form 10 for the assessment year 2013-14 constitutes a default in that year. Consequently, the amount should be treated as income of assessment year 2013-14 and not the year under consideration (2018-19). The order of the lower authorities was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s denial of exemption under section 10(23BBA) based solely on the non-filing of a return was unsustainable, referencing a CBDT circular. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of statutory conditions.
The Tribunal admitted lease agreements filed by the assessee for the first time, which showed the cash was received as custodian for property owners. Since these were not verified by lower authorities, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that additional documents supporting the loan from Mrs. Sujatha M were filed and crucial for the issue. Considering the need for fresh examination, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit evidence and the AO to consider it.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's action of disallowing the deduction based on a presumption of opting for Section 115BAA was beyond its scope under Section 143(1). The CIT(A) erred by not examining the merits and dismissing the claim due to a minor defect in Form 10CCB.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 164 days, which was condoned by condoning the delay based on the reasons provided and the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector of Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji and Others. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not sufficiently substantiated their case before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment. The issue of 'other payables' was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had mechanically rejected the application without proper application of mind, disregarding previous binding decisions. The Tribunal found that the activities were for the welfare of the printing industry and not a commercial venture.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim of no sale was not adequately substantiated before the AO, though evidence was produced before the CIT(A). Considering the ongoing litigations and the need for detailed verification, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory, and that the time limit prescribed is not mandatory. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has consistently held that delay in filing Form 67 does not hamper the assessee from obtaining foreign tax credit. The Tribunal further held that the CIT(A) erred in directing the assessee to approach the jurisdictional CIT for condoning the delay.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect of Rs.59,83,534 was below the revised monetary threshold of Rs.60 lakhs, as stipulated by CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.9.2024. The Department, acknowledging the low tax effect and compliance with the circular, withdrew its appeal.
The Tribunal addressed Ground No. 9 concerning the disallowance of expenditure on scientific research under Section 35(1)(i). The Tribunal noted that identical issues were examined in earlier and subsequent years without disallowance, even without a certificate from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. While the assessee submitted some details, including on a sample basis, the Tribunal found that complete details were not produced to the satisfaction of the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was set aside to the file of the AO with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the expenditure with evidence. The AO was directed to examine the same and decide afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing. Grounds not pressed were dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed. The judgment does not explicitly record findings on the transfer pricing issues (Grounds 1-8) or the AMP expenditure issue (Ground 6), other than noting that Ground 7.1 to 7.6 were allowed and Ground 7 became infructuous. The operative direction was to remand the scientific research expenditure issue to the AO.
The Tribunal held that for registration under Section 12AB, the genuineness of activities, not the quantum of expenditure, is relevant. The CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application solely on the basis of expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds challenging the reopening under Section 147 were without merit, as mandatory conditions were followed and proper sanction was obtained. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC correctly dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-requisite of paying advance tax or seeking exemption.
The Tribunal held that the payments were not royalty as no patent or design owned by the Philippines company was used by the assessee. It was also not business income as there was no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Furthermore, even if considered FTS, Article 23 of the India-Philippines DTAA (Other Income) meant such income was taxable only in the Philippines.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 67 along with the return is a technical violation, and the assessee is entitled to foreign tax credit. The issue was remitted to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should get the benefit of housing loan interest, considering that the relevant details were provided and the figures tallied with the interest certificate, despite a technical error in quoting the figure in the income tax return.
The Tribunal noted that both parties conceded that the assessee could not effectively represent his case before the Assessing Officer (AO). The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had also observed the assessee's failure to provide explanations and supporting evidence for the investment. Furthermore, the DRP did not consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee. In the interest of justice and fair play, and as requested by the assessee's A.R., the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue in dispute back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant documents and information required by the AO. A reasonable opportunity of being heard was to be granted to the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition but remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unjustified as the assessee had provided primary evidence like invoices and ledger details, and the AO failed to utilize his powers under Section 133(6) to verify from suppliers. Suspicion alone cannot replace proof, and a flat ad-hoc disallowance is unsustainable without demonstrating defects in the purchases.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid as it was neither digitally nor manually signed, failing to comply with section 282A(1) and relevant notifications. Consequently, the assessment made on the basis of such notice was void ab initio. Section 292B was held not to cure this jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the assessee rendered services in the UK and her residential status needs to be established. Due to the absence of necessary documents, the AO's addition was not fully verified.
The Tribunal held that the seized loose paper did not constitute incriminating material evidencing undisclosed income. The addition of alleged undisclosed interest income was directed to be deleted. The disallowance of cash purchases was also decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a registered sale deed has strong evidentiary value and cannot be disregarded based on uncorroborated oral statements. The Revenue failed to provide clinching evidence of cash payment, and principles of natural justice were violated by not allowing cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's admission in the statement under section 132(4), even if made under stress, shifts the burden of proof. However, for certain assessment years, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee acted in good faith and substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee acted in good faith and substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee acted in good faith and substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a statement recorded under section 132(4) without corroborative material. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee retracted the admission and found no incriminating material to support the claim of bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly brought undisclosed interest income to tax based on seized documents and the assessee's sworn statements. However, additions for assessment years beyond the permissible period under Section 153A were deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on an admission made during a search, without corroborative material, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had retracted the admission regarding inflated purchases and that the sales were not doubted, weakening the Revenue's case.
The Tribunal held that additions solely based on a statement made under Section 132(4)/131 without corroborative material are unsustainable. The Tribunal also found that the admission regarding interest income was not supported by sufficient evidence and the assessee's explanation for the source of funds was not adequately controverted.
The Tribunal held that additions solely based on a statement made under section 132(4) without corroborative material are not sustainable. The assessee's retraction from the admission and consistent arguments about genuine sales weakened the Revenue's case.
The Tribunal held that loose sheets alone, without corroboration, do not constitute substantive evidence of undisclosed income. Admissions during search must be considered holistically, and the assessee's explanation for the revised percentage of non-genuine purchases was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's admission in the statement recorded under section 132(4) has evidentiary value and shifts the burden of proof. The assessee failed to provide concrete evidence that the luxury cars were primarily and substantially used for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the voluntary admission made by the assessee under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, carries significant evidentiary value and cannot be easily retracted. The AO's disallowance based on this admission was upheld.