Loading ITAT cases…
148 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal addressed several grounds. Regarding employee stock compensation (Ground 4), it was not pressed and thus dismissed. On DDT (Ground 5), the judgment does not record a decision. For overdue receivables (Ground 6), the Tribunal found that the TPO's treatment of overdue receivables as a separate international transaction and the computation of notional interest were not impressed upon. The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude certain comparable companies in the distribution segment (Ground 7), including Tally Solutions Private Limited, Innovana Think Labs Ltd, and Quick Heal Technologies Ltd, due to functional dissimilarity (software development vs. distribution). Compucom Software Ltd was directed to follow the DRP's direction regarding segmental margin. Thus, Ground 7 was partly allowed. Regarding TDS credit (Ground 8), both parties agreed that the Assessing Officer (AO) should compute and grant the correct TDS credit. The AO was directed to grant a credit of ₹780,770 after verification, and Ground 8 was allowed. Grounds 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 were dismissed as not pressed, consequential, or premature.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing additions made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee should be deleted if the substantive addition in the hands of the foreign holding company has been settled under the VSV scheme 2020. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the dispute is covered by the VSV scheme 2020, and if so, the addition deserves to be deleted, allowing the assessee's ground. The appeal by the revenue against the working capital adjustment was allowed and restored to the Assessing Officer to decide in consequence of his decision on the assessee's appeal. Regarding the waiver of loan, the Tribunal held that it is not taxable under Section 41(1) as no allowance or deduction was claimed in earlier years. Respectfully following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in IG Petrochemicals Ltd., the Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground concerning the loan waiver. The Tribunal noted that grounds 1, 2, and 12 of the assessee's appeal were not pressed and were dismissed. The appeals for both assessment years were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and adjudicated the appeal on merits. It directed the deletion of additions made by the AO on account of sub-contract payables, disallowed royalty, and differences in gross receipts, finding the assessee's explanations and evidence satisfactory.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily demonstrated the genuineness of the purchases, especially considering payments were made via cheque. Furthermore, for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A require incriminating material, which was absent here.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had issues with online filing and some discrepancies in documents, they subsequently provided rectified forms and annexures. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to produce supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily demonstrated the genuineness of the purchases, especially considering payments were made via cheque. Furthermore, for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A require incriminating material, which was absent here.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order invoking section 263 was not justified as the AO's assessment order was not erroneous. The Tribunal found that the difference identified by the PCIT pertained to GST component and had been explained by the assessee with supporting documents. The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily demonstrated the genuineness of the purchases, especially considering payments were made via cheque. Furthermore, for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A require incriminating material, which was absent here.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily demonstrated the genuineness of the purchases, especially considering payments were made via cheque. Furthermore, for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A require incriminating material, which was absent here.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily demonstrated the genuineness of the purchases, especially considering payments were made via cheque. Furthermore, for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A require incriminating material, which was absent here.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) erred in calculating the delay and dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's submission regarding the deposits being loan repayments and staff's limited computer literacy leading to delayed response.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied solely on initial statements without corroborative evidence and failed to consider retractions filed by the assessee and other parties within a reasonable time. The nature of the civil construction business, involving cash payments for labor, was also not adequately appreciated.
The Tribunal held that the sub-contract payments were incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose of the assessee. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including labour registers and work orders, to support the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a private limited company, was obligated to maintain books of accounts and file returns. Despite claims of ignorance and TDS deduction by customers, the assessee's repeated failure to comply with tax laws warranted no leniency. The penalty under Section 271B was rightly imposed and confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the exclusion of the COVID period and the demise of the tax consultant. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the issue to the AO for denovo consideration, with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition regarding jewellery was not justified based on family customs and CBDT guidelines, and thus set aside that addition. Regarding the cash addition, the Tribunal confirmed 50% of the addition, treating the remaining 50% as explained savings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to pass a speaking order by merely relying on the JAO's report and not considering the assessee's submitted documents, trust deed, annual reports, and financial statements. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was not sustainable as it failed to adjudicate issues on merits. On merits, the Tribunal deleted additions related to cash deposits and BMA Commodities investment, restricted the addition on professional receipts to 10% of gross receipts, and deleted the addition on brokerage income.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to banking companies. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and High Courts, which established that the computation provisions of Section 115JB are unworkable for banking companies.
The Tribunal held that provisions of Section 115JB are not applicable to a banking company. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and High Courts, which established that the computation provisions of Section 115JB are unworkable for banking companies.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2012, is not applicable to banking companies. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and High Courts.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2012, is not applicable to banking companies. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and High Courts.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2012, is not applicable to a banking company. This decision was based on previous judgments of the Tribunal and High Courts.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's (AO) reference to the PCIT for cancellation was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the search material, not his own independent satisfaction. Therefore, the PCIT's order cancelling the registration was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the Principal Commissioner for cancellation of registration was unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO's reference, as detailed in paragraph 10 of the AO's satisfaction note, was entirely based on the evidence gathered during the search operation and did not demonstrate any independent inquiry or personal satisfaction of the AO regarding the specified violations. The Tribunal characterized this as a 'borrowed satisfaction', which is contrary to the requirement of the second proviso to section 143(3) that the satisfaction must be that of the AO. Citing the decision in Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, the Tribunal concluded that since the reference was flawed due to borrowed satisfaction, the subsequent order passed by the PCIT cancelling the registration was also unsustainable. Consequently, the PCIT's order cancelling the registration under section 12AB(4) for AY 2022-23 was quashed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the merits of the case were not examined and the registration was restored pending assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had passed the order without verifying the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the relevant details.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's status as a senior citizen and the undertaking for future compliance. In the interest of justice, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue of the provision for obsolescence is covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the assessee's own case for earlier years, as well as by the decision of the coordinate bench for some earlier years. Therefore, in principle, the loss is allowable. The primary issue was the submission of details regarding such obsolescence losses. Although the assessee stated that details were available in annual accounts, the AO needed to be shown the manner of making the provision and its quantum. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the entire issue back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to submit the necessary details, and if found reasonable and adequate by the AO, the claim must be allowed, following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court and the coordinate bench. Ground No. 2 of the appeal was allowed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Regarding the interest on housing loan, the Tribunal noted that the intention of the legislature, as indicated by proposed amendments to Section 48, is that interest on borrowed capital for acquiring property can form part of the cost of acquisition or improvement. Since the assessee had not claimed any deduction under Section 24(b), she is eligible to claim the interest as cost of acquisition/improvement. The Tribunal remitted the issue of the actual interest paid (Rs. 15,73,236) to the AO for verification and to allow the actual interest not claimed under Section 24(b) as cost of acquisition/improvement. The Tribunal allowed the claim for commission paid to the broker (Rs. 1,20,000) as it was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the immovable property, making it allowable under Section 48(i). The Tribunal also allowed the claim for cost of improvement for basic interiors, agreeing that these expenses were incurred to make the house habitable and form an integral part of the building, thus allowing them as cost of improvement. The issue regarding stamp duty and registration charges was not explicitly decided in the provided excerpt, but the overall decision indicates a partial allowance.
The Tribunal admitted additional documents filed by the assessee and noted that the lower authorities had not explicitly asked for supporting materials. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) held that the non-consideration of a jurisdictional High Court's decision, which clarified the legal position on adjusting non-rural bad debts, constituted a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the rectification application was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and did not confront the assessee with the AO's remand report, which violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration was justified based on the findings of diversion of trust funds and bogus expenditures. The evidence gathered during the search indicated malpractices by the trust, leading to the cancellation of its registration.
The Tribunal held that investment in a new property in the name of the spouse does not disentitle the assessee from claiming exemption under Section 54. The Tribunal also noted that the construction delay was due to the assessee's non-resident status and foreign employment, and that the investment in the vacant plot was made before the due date for filing the return.
The Tribunal held that for claiming exemption under Section 54, registration of the purchase deed within the prescribed time is not mandatory. The key is whether the capital gains were invested in a residential house, even if the transaction was not fully complete within the stipulated period.
The Tribunal held that the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the Principal Commissioner for cancellation of registration was unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO's reference, as detailed in paragraph 10 of the AO's satisfaction note, was entirely based on the evidence gathered during the search operation and did not demonstrate any independent inquiry or personal satisfaction of the AO regarding the specified violations. The Tribunal characterized this as a 'borrowed satisfaction', which is contrary to the requirement of the second proviso to section 143(3) that the satisfaction must be that of the AO. Citing the decision in Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, the Tribunal concluded that since the reference was flawed due to borrowed satisfaction, the subsequent order passed by the PCIT cancelling the registration was also unsustainable. Consequently, the PCIT's order cancelling the registration under section 12AB(4) for AY 2022-23 was quashed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the merits of the case were not examined and the registration was restored pending assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and did not confront the assessee with the AO's remand report, which violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the delay, imposing a cost of ₹1000 for the implausible reason of searching for a consultant. On merits, it ruled that the Section 11 exemption could not be denied for clerical errors like missing 12AB details in the ITR, especially when the department could have verified it and the assessee demonstrated application of income. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that a minor delay of 4 days should not lead to a denial of justice and that the learned CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act by not stating points for determination and reasons for his decision. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the plausible cause due to the husband's demise. The ex-parte orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw grounds 1 to 28 related to transfer pricing issues, noting the existence of a unilateral APA with the CBDT and the Revenue's no objection. These grounds were dismissed as withdrawn. Regarding grounds 29 to 32, concerning the addition of Rs.1,09,20,680/- on account of bad debts recovered, the Tribunal found that the assessee had already declared this amount in its return of income under the head 'Any other income' and in its audited financial statements. The Tribunal held that the AO erred in using an alleged section 143(1) intimation, which was not demonstrably issued or served, as the starting point for computing assessed income. The addition was deemed unjustified as it led to double taxation. Therefore, the AO was directed to delete this addition. Grounds 29 to 32 were allowed. Ground 33, relating to interest under sections 234A and 234B, was considered consequential and thus allowed. Ground 34, concerning short grant of TDS credit, was remitted to the AO for examination and verification of whether the corresponding income was declared, with directions to allow credit if verified. This ground was partly allowed. Grounds 35 and 36, related to penalty proceedings, were held to be premature and were dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the plausible cause due to the husband's demise. The ex-parte orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of the cash deposit. The CIT(A) was faulted for ignoring these evidences, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deemed unjustified and unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that for section 263 to be invoked, the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Regarding the first condition, the Tribunal found that the AO had indeed called for details of intangible assets and depreciation, and the assessee furnished supporting documents. Therefore, it could not be said that the AO made no enquiry; at best, the enquiry could be considered inadequate, but inadequate enquiry does not empower revision. Concerning the second condition, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was a continuous loss-incurring entity in AY 2020-21 and subsequent years. Therefore, any disallowance of depreciation in the present year would merely shift the claim to a later year, making the issue tax-neutral. When there is no actual prejudice caused to the Revenue, the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction fails. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Soham Buildcon v. PCIT, where revision was quashed in tax-neutral circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal held that even if the assessment order was considered erroneous, it was not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The revisionary order passed by the PCIT was deemed unsustainable in law, and the impugned order was quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit from property sale proceeds was reasonable and satisfactory. The AO did not provide evidence to disprove this, and suspicion cannot substitute for evidence, thus the addition under section 69A was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 238 days, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked reasons, which is contrary to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on third-party data without independent verification, especially when the assessee provided party details and GST information. The AO's addition was deleted as the Revenue failed to prove the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after noting the reasonable cause explained by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity and the CIT(A) order lacked reasons, hence it was set aside.