Loading ITAT cases…
169 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that the documents seized during the search were not incriminating and did not establish a violation of Section 47(xiii). The Tribunal relied on its previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18, which found similar documents to be not incriminating and set aside additions.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made in proceedings under Section 153A unless based on incriminating material found during a search, and a statement alone without corroboration is insufficient. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that while the reasons were weak, denying justice on technical grounds would cause greater hardship. The Tribunal also found that the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were passed ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that once the option under Section 115BAA is exercised, it applies to subsequent assessment years without requiring a fresh filing of Form 10IC each year. The initial belated filing of Form 10IC for AY 2020-21 was considered valid for subsequent years, including AY 2021-22.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 was not justified due to lack of tangible material and non-application of mind by the AO. The CIT(A) had rightly allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reopening and assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the plausible and sufficient cause related to the demise of the assessee's husband. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the entire issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that once the option under Section 115BAA is exercised, it applies to subsequent assessment years without requiring a fresh filing of Form 10IC each year. The initial belated filing of Form 10IC for AY 2020-21 was considered valid for subsequent years, including AY 2021-22.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's adjustment for gratuity provision was not sustainable as the amount was not claimed by the assessee and making such an adjustment resulted in a double disallowance. Similarly, the adjustment for ICDS V was deemed unjustified as the net effect was already considered in the return of income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not represent his case before the CIT(A)/NFAC due to a communication gap and unawareness of notices. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed Rs. 5 lakhs was cash withdrawn by his wife. However, the wife's bank statement was not produced. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the AO to decide afresh after providing the assessee with an opportunity to produce necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO invoking Section 69A of unexplained investment was not proper. The evidence indicated that the payment for the property was made by the assessee's son, which was supported by his bank account statements and was also partly funded by the assessee's husband.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) had observed that the assessee failed to submit details regarding land purchase, nature of building, plan approval, construction progress, and utilization of the building, and also noted meagre donations towards charitable activities. However, the Tribunal found that there was no material to suggest non-genuineness of the assessee's activities. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application without seeking additional data or issuing a show cause notice, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to call for necessary documents and information to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities and compliance with other laws. Specifically, the CIT(Exemptions) was directed to verify details regarding the building fund contribution, donor directions, land purchase, building details, construction status, utilization of the building, and whether the trust's objects are for members or the public at large. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum of expenditure is not as relevant as the genuineness of the activity. The same reasoning was applied to the Section 80G approval, remitting the issue for fresh consideration. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that while the sale deed reflected the adjustment of the security deposit, the exact date of payment to MESCOM was not established. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of bank statements and other evidence to ascertain the period of payment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) had observed that the assessee failed to submit details regarding land purchase, nature of building, plan approval, construction progress, and utilization of the building, and also noted meagre donations towards charitable activities. However, the Tribunal found that there was no material to suggest non-genuineness of the assessee's activities. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application without seeking additional data or issuing a show cause notice, which is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to call for necessary documents and information to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities and compliance with other laws. Specifically, the CIT(Exemptions) was directed to verify details regarding the building fund contribution, donor directions, land purchase, building details, construction status, utilization of the building, and whether the trust's objects are for members or the public at large. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum of expenditure is not as relevant as the genuineness of the activity. The same reasoning was applied to the Section 80G approval, remitting the issue for fresh consideration. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was indeed barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision. However, for AY 2018-19, the notice was considered valid as the escapement of income exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, allowing reassessment within six years.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument to apply the APA margin of 17.13% to transactions with non-US-based associated enterprises. The Tribunal noted that the APA, dated 17/10/2024, explicitly states in paragraph 3.3 that covered transactions are with Northern Trust Corporation and its subsidiaries in the USA. Therefore, only US transactions are covered by the APA. The Tribunal found that the assessee's transfer pricing study report indicated different agreements and distinct functions for transactions with US and non-US entities, contradicting the assessee's claim of similarity. The Tribunal also observed that even if the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was used, which subsumes dissimilarities, it did not justify extending the APA rate to non-US entities when the functions were demonstrably different. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 92CC and 92CD of the Act do not provide for an APA covering one set of transactions to govern others not covered. The judicial precedents cited by the assessee pertained to MAP, not APAs, and thus were not applicable. Consequently, the appeal concerning the determination of the arm's-length price for non-US entity transactions was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding that the assessee had not properly represented her case before the lower authorities, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was indeed barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision. However, for AY 2018-19, the notice was considered valid as the escapement of income exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, allowing reassessment within six years.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding that the assessee had not properly represented her case before the lower authorities, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits.