Loading ITAT cases…
375 orders · Page 6 of 8
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex parte orders without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication along with or after the quantum assessment.
The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer reopens an assessment based on certain reasons but finds that income did not escape assessment on those specific grounds, they cannot independently assess other escaped income without issuing a fresh notice. The addition made on other grounds was therefore invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO due to the circumstances. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessment for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee were in the nature of marketing services, based on the agreement dated April 1, 2010, with SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee's role was limited to liaising with customers, understanding their workflow requirements, and communicating these to SPI Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., which undertook the project execution. The Tribunal noted that the AO and DRP had incorrectly assumed an amalgamation date. It was established that the assessee received sales commission as a percentage of sales from new and existing customers. The Tribunal concluded that the nature of the work executed and activities carried out by the assessee could not be equated with 'fee for included services' as defined in Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA DTAA. Therefore, the commission was not taxable in India and should be considered as sales commission only. The addition made by the AO was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal addressed the issues as follows: Regarding the exclusion of comparables in transfer pricing, the assessee's counsel stated that they were only interested in the exclusion of the four specific comparables mentioned. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's finding on whether these four comparables should be excluded or not, but it proceeds to adjudicate other issues. It appears this specific point regarding the four comparables was not fully adjudicated in the provided excerpt. Concerning the exclusion of expenditure incurred in foreign currency from export turnover and the non-exclusion of foreign inward remittances from total turnover for Section 10A deduction, the Tribunal noted that the authorities below had not dealt with the issue properly. The assessee's counsel submitted that this issue was covered in their favor by a previous Tribunal decision for AY 2010-11. The Tribunal agreed in principle but stated that facts needed verification. Therefore, this issue was restored to the file of the AO/DRP for proper adjudication, following the principle laid down in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,40,37,340/- and interest under Section 234D on account of refund, the assessee claimed no refund was received. The revenue suggested the assessee contact the AO for verification. The Tribunal restored this issue back to the file of the AO for verification and decision on the corresponding charge of interest under Section 234D. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the order was considered invalid and passed without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order is bad in law because the AO did not address the reasons for reopening (sale of land/capital gains) and instead made additions on a different issue (TP adjustments).
The Tribunal held that the TPO and CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence submitted by the assessee regarding capacity utilization. The matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a bona fide mistake in claiming deduction under the wrong sub-section should not deny the assessee its rightful claim if it is otherwise eligible. Procedural irregularities should not defeat substantive rights.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO due to the circumstances. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessment for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the time limit prescribed for filing the application under Section 80G(5)(iii) should be treated as directory and not mandatory, especially in light of CBDT circulars extending deadlines. The Madras High Court's decision was also cited, declaring a similar clause in a circular as arbitrary.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO due to the circumstances. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessment for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex parte orders without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication along with or after the quantum assessment.
The Tribunal found that a rectification application filed by the assessee was still pending. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after adjudicating the rectification application and providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that a rectification application filed by the assessee was still pending. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after adjudicating the rectification application and providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: 1. **Depreciation on Computer Software:** The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on computer software at 60%. It respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Computer Age Management Services and its own benches' decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal held that Entry 5 of Part A of New Appendix I, read with Note 7, is a specific entry covering computer software, allowing 60% depreciation. The Revenue's contention referring to Part B (general entry for intangible assets) was rejected as not applicable to computer software. 2. **Deduction under Section 35DD:** The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 35DD amounting to Rs. 2,03,364/-. It noted that the assessee had incurred expenditure for amalgamation and sought to claim it as amortization. The CIT(A) had denied the claim due to lack of revised return and auditor's certification. The Tribunal, by following a coordinate bench order in the assessee's own case, allowed the ground for statistical purposes, subject to verification by the AO. 3. **Advance Tax and TDS Credit:** The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim for credit of advance tax and TDS belonging to amalgamated companies. It acknowledged that such credit might not be reflected in the assessee's Form 26AS and, by following a coordinate bench order in the assessee's own case, allowed the ground for statistical purposes, subject to verification by the AO. 4. **Lease Equalization Charges:** The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue, upholding the order of the CIT(A). It agreed that the provision for lease equalization charges is an ascertained liability and correctly treated as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. and CIT vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd., respectively. Therefore, it could not be added back in the book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal noted that ex-parte orders were passed by both lower authorities due to the assessee's non-participation. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the source of funds from loans obtained by the assessee and relatives, along with their bank statements, clearly explained the investment. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the source of funds.
The Tribunal noted that an ex-parte order was passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-participation, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of probable cash-in-hand based on a 10% incremental growth was fallacious and lacked logic. The cash-in-hand is a matter of fact, not estimation, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal was incorrect as the advance tax credit was supported by the AO's computation and had been brought to the CIT(A)'s notice. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the AO because the assessee had passed away and there were disputes among his legal heirs, preventing proper representation and compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for non-receipt of notices to be bonafide. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, preventing the assessee from presenting their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory, following previous High Court and Tribunal decisions. Therefore, the assessee should be granted the Foreign Tax Credit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ready to prosecute the grounds of appeal and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee is permitted to file supporting evidence.
The tribunal held that the belated deposit of employees' PF contribution makes it income of the assessee as per the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, the issue of capital profit disallowance was remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: 1. **Depreciation on Computer Software:** The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation on computer software at 60%. It respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Computer Age Management Services and its own benches' decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal held that Entry 5 of Part A of New Appendix I, read with Note 7, is a specific entry covering computer software, allowing 60% depreciation. The Revenue's contention referring to Part B (general entry for intangible assets) was rejected as not applicable to computer software. 2. **Deduction under Section 35DD:** The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 35DD amounting to Rs. 2,03,364/-. It noted that the assessee had incurred expenditure for amalgamation and sought to claim it as amortization. The CIT(A) had denied the claim due to lack of revised return and auditor's certification. The Tribunal, by following a coordinate bench order in the assessee's own case, allowed the ground for statistical purposes, subject to verification by the AO. 3. **Advance Tax and TDS Credit:** The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim for credit of advance tax and TDS belonging to amalgamated companies. It acknowledged that such credit might not be reflected in the assessee's Form 26AS and, by following a coordinate bench order in the assessee's own case, allowed the ground for statistical purposes, subject to verification by the AO. 4. **Lease Equalization Charges:** The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue, upholding the order of the CIT(A). It agreed that the provision for lease equalization charges is an ascertained liability and correctly treated as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. and CIT vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd., respectively. Therefore, it could not be added back in the book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for non-receipt of notices to be bonafide. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It granted the assessee another opportunity for a de novo adjudication by the CIT(A) to substantiate its case, adhering to the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay and, despite the assessee's negligence and absence, granted another opportunity for de novo adjudication by the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to substantiate their case.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing in the interest of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- and will lead to a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case and supply necessary information.
The ITAT condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case, failing which the CIT(A) could decide on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee received retirement benefits and made cash withdrawals. Considering these facts, the Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 4.95 Lacs, deleting the balance Rs. 5 Lacs.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its case. The matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing before the CIT(A) based on the principle of natural justice. The appeal was restored for de novo adjudication.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal as the revenue did not object. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked as the assessee had provided an explanation for the cash deposits, which were from regular business sales reflected in the maintained cash books. The Assessing Officer had not pointed out any defects in the books or doubted the sales turnover.
The Tribunal held that the issue of timelines for filing Form No. 10AB has been decided in favour of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench and the Madras High Court. Recent CBDT circulars have also extended the timelines.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the principle of natural justice. The appeal was restored back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal allowed grounds related to Section 14A disallowance if no exempt income was earned, citing a High Court decision. It dismissed grounds related to employee PF/ESI contributions due to a Supreme Court ruling and dismissed a ground on TDS interest as not pressed. Grounds on delayed PF/ESI payments were partly allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to bifurcate compensatory interest. Grounds on interest on advances to group companies were allowed, following a co-ordinate bench decision. Grounds on depreciation were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication to provide another opportunity. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case, failing which the CIT(A) can decide on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the first appeal should not have been dismissed on delay, considering the substantial delay was covered by the Covid-19 lockdown. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and re-adjudicate it on merits.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for hearing in the interest of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs.5,000/- within 30 days, and the CIT(A) will then conduct a de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's negligence, granted another opportunity for de novo adjudication by the CIT(A) to uphold the principle of natural justice. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case, failing which the CIT(A) can proceed on merits.