Loading ITAT cases…
299 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal admitted the transporter declarations as additional evidence, noting their importance and the fact they were not examined by the lower authorities. The case was remanded to the AO for verification of these declarations.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all supporting documents, and the AO was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Since the penalty proceedings were initiated based on information from another assessee's search, the limitation period was calculated from the date of the show cause notice.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153C are only valid if based on incriminating materials seized during a search. Additions made based on regular books of accounts, without such materials, are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153C are only valid if based on incriminating materials seized during a search. Additions made based on regular books of accounts, without such materials, are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153C are only valid if based on incriminating materials seized during a search. Additions made based on regular books of accounts, without such materials, are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153C are only valid if based on incriminating materials seized during a search. Additions made based on regular books of accounts, without such materials, are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153C are only valid if based on incriminating materials seized during a search. Additions made based on regular books of accounts, without such materials, are not sustainable.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's non-response but in the interest of justice, decided to grant one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the registration application.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had adequately examined the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80JJAA based on the material on record. The mere absence of an elaborate discussion in the assessment order does not render it erroneous, and section 80JJAA(2)(b) was not applicable as the amalgamation did not increase the assessee's eligible deduction.
The Tribunal held that it is an admitted fact that the CIT(A)'s order did not address the grounds raised by the assessee on working capital adjustment. The assessee's primary grievance was that the TPO, while computing the ALP, adopted a negative working capital adjustment of -1.24% and applied negative values to the final set of comparables. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a negative working capital adjustment cannot be made without considering risk adjustment. Consequently, the Tribunal, finding merit in the assessee's argument and as prayed by the learned AR, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) on the limited issue of adjudicating the adjustment with respect to working capital, providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 2.2 was allowed statistically. Other grounds were considered academic and did not require adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merits due to a delay in filing. Considering the COVID-related extension period, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, granted the assessee one last opportunity to furnish necessary documents to the CIT(A). The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed necessary details which were not considered by the CIT(E). In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a payment to a relief fund, citing sufficient cause and the interest of substantial justice. The appeal was then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not examined the cash flow, withdrawals, and additional evidence regarding agricultural income in detail. Therefore, the matters were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for harvesting and transportation charges, finding that these were part of the sugarcane procurement cost and not subject to TDS under Section 194C. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of consultancy charges had attained finality in favor of the assessee in a previous round.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not examined the cash flow, withdrawals, and additional evidence regarding agricultural income in detail. Therefore, the matters were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance as it was not ultimately made in the 143(1) intimation. For Section 35(2AB), the Tribunal noted the undisputed approved expenditure by DSIR and directed the AO to allow deduction based on that. For Section 80G, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify the conditions for deduction, following coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal found that the issue required fresh examination, including verification of recipient identity and nature of payments. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish supporting documents, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the current appeal as it had become infructuous. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/infructuous.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities due to ex-parte assessments and the assessee's subsequent declared net profit of 2%. The issue was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to produce evidence.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities discarded the confirmation letter without cogent reasons or pointing out specific faults. They should have further examined or verified its genuineness, or provided an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 245 days, finding sufficient cause. It then remitted the entire issue back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the issue required fresh examination, including verification of recipients' identity and nature of payments. One more opportunity was granted to the assessee to furnish supporting documents, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided to extend the stay on the outstanding demand for a further period of 180 days or until the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. The reasoning provided is that there has been no change in the facts and circumstances since the original stay order was granted. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal must be taken up for hearing on the appointed date (06.07.2026) and that neither party should seek any adjournment, as this is the fourth extension of the original stay. The stay petition is accordingly allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the disallowances did not originate from the scrutiny assessment order. Since there was no merger of the Section 143(1) intimation and the Section 143(3) assessment order on these points, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided details of cash deposits and their sources, including from members' accounts and loan repayments, to the AO. The AO's rejection of these explanations solely due to the non-filing of a return was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred by not considering the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee explaining the transactions and the filing of returns under a new PAN. The additions made were deleted as the transactions were explained and reflected in the return.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared commission income and provided supporting documents like GST returns and bill books. The Tribunal concluded that the cash deposits were primarily sale proceeds belonging to sellers, not the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that grounds no. 4 and 5, concerning the exclusion/inclusion of comparable companies, are allowed. The Tribunal directed the TPO to delete Orangescape Technologies Ltd. and Infomile Technologies Ltd. from the list of comparables, finding that the assessee's contention regarding their presence in the Prowess database and functional comparability was supported. Regarding Net4Nuts Ltd., Aptus Software Labs Pvt. Ltd., and Consilient Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal, by relying on a coordinate bench decision, directed their exclusion from the list of comparables. For ground no. 7, concerning interest on delayed receivables, the Tribunal noted that it was not ascertainable whether the transactions were in foreign currency. Citing a coordinate bench decision in NTT Data FA Insurance Systems (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, which relied on the jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. AMD India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that if transactions are in foreign currency, LIBOR + 2% should apply, otherwise SBI PLR. The issue was remitted to the AO to verify the currency and apply the correct rate. For ground no. 8, regarding the short grant of tax credit, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify the assessee's claim of short credit of Rs. 25,85,990/- and grant credit if correct, then compute tax liability. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay of 852 days, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed time. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's age, illiteracy, and remote location as sufficient cause. The matter was then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the issue of netting off receivables and payables requires factual verification. It found merit in the assessee's contention that corresponding payables to the same AE cannot be ignored when determining adjustments for delayed receivables. Citing the decision in Pathpartner Technology (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO/TPO to verify if receivables and payables pertain to the same AE and arise in the normal course of business. If established, the adjustment should be computed only on the net receivable amount. The Tribunal also found that the rate adopted by the TPO required reconsideration. Consistent with settled law and decisions of coordinate benches, it directed the AO/TPO to adopt LIBOR plus 200 basis points for computing any surviving adjustment. The assessee was to be afforded an opportunity to be heard and furnish relevant details. The Tribunal set aside the issue and directed the TPO/AO to recompute the arm's length price of notional interest on receivables as discussed. Consequently, this ground of appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the AO was unsustainable in law and void ab initio. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to give effect to the directions issued by the DRP, which had granted partial relief to the assessee, reducing the transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 144C(13) of the Act casts a mandatory obligation on the AO to complete the assessment in conformity with the DRP's directions, using the word 'shall'. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contention that the defect was a rectifiable mistake under Section 154, stating that a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C(13) constitutes a jurisdictional defect, not a mere clerical or arithmetical error. The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Flextronics Technologies (India) (P.) Ltd., which held that an assessment order passed without reworking ALP as per DRP directions is to be set aside. Consequently, the impugned final assessment order was quashed. Other grounds raised on merits were left undecided as the assessment itself was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) was bad in law as the AO failed to consider the assessee's reply and the legal position regarding the calculation of escaped income for the purpose of limitation under Section 149. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the TPO was not justified in rejecting the transaction-by-transaction benchmarking adopted by the assessee and in applying TNMM at the entity level by aggregating various international transactions. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the TPO had accepted the benchmarking for other international transactions, and the dispute was confined only to raw material and consumable purchases. Aggregating all transactions and subjecting the entire entity to TNMM analysis solely for examining the arm's length nature of purchase transactions was deemed unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the DRP's premise that all transactions were benchmarked under TNMM was factually incorrect, as the assessee used different methods for different transactions, which the TPO accepted for most. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's argument that import transactions of raw materials and consumables were independently benchmarkable using customs valuation accepted by SVB, which is a reliable external benchmark. Respectfully following the decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2018-19, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO/TPO to benchmark the international transactions relating to purchase of raw materials and consumables by adopting the valuation accepted by the Customs Authorities/SVB and determine the ALP afresh.
The Tribunal held that the market data charges are not taxable as royalty and the reimbursement of employee-related expenses are not FTS, following its own prior decisions in similar cases. Consequential interest and penalty proceedings were also addressed.
The Tribunal held that the interest component of a refund must be adjusted first before the principal tax amount. This approach ensures equitable treatment and prevents unjust enrichment of the Revenue, aligning with legislative intent and constitutional fairness.
The Tribunal held that the interest component of a refund must be adjusted first before the principal tax amount. This approach ensures equitable treatment and prevents unjust enrichment of the Revenue, aligning with legislative intent and constitutional fairness.
The Tribunal held that the interest component of a refund must be adjusted first before the principal tax amount. This approach ensures equitable treatment and prevents unjust enrichment of the Revenue, aligning with legislative intent and constitutional fairness.
The Tribunal held that the interest component of a refund must be adjusted first before the principal tax amount. This approach ensures equitable treatment and prevents unjust enrichment of the Revenue, aligning with legislative intent and constitutional fairness.
The Tribunal held that the interest component of a refund must be adjusted first before the principal tax amount. This approach ensures equitable treatment and prevents unjust enrichment of the Revenue, aligning with legislative intent and constitutional fairness.
The Tribunal held that the interest component of a refund must be adjusted first before the principal tax amount. This approach ensures equitable treatment and prevents unjust enrichment of the Revenue, aligning with legislative intent and constitutional fairness.
The Tribunal held that gains from the transfer of land are assessable as capital gains, not business income. Disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) were deleted as they are applicable only to business income. The issue of disallowance for encroachments was remanded for verification of quantum and evidence.
The Tribunal held that gains from the transfer of land are assessable as capital gains, not business income. Disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) were deleted as they are applicable only to business income. The issue of disallowance for encroachments was remanded for verification of quantum and evidence.
The assessee's representative sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.