Loading ITAT cases…
280 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1603 days, accepting the assessee's reason that its staff were not well-trained in tax matters and that there was a lapse in filing the appeal on time. The Tribunal also noted the pandemic-related relaxations for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee received the rent amounts in subsequent years and offered them to tax in the year of receipt. Regarding Mobivil Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., it was noted that actual rent received and TDS deducted were not disputed. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer erred in considering the agreed rent instead of the actual rent received.
The tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application on hyper-technical grounds without examining the merits of the trust's objects. The rejection was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the AO's approach was hasty and lacked application of mind, as he did not properly examine the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) merely confirmed the AO's findings without independent analysis. For the unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the AO's and CIT(A)'s conclusions were not based on thorough investigation, and the assessee had not been given a fair opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1603 days, accepting the assessee's reason that its staff were not well-trained in tax matters and that there was a lapse in filing the appeal on time. The Tribunal also noted the pandemic-related relaxations for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the facts and had violated principles of natural justice by not confronting the assessee with the inspector's report. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's stand was based on a confused understanding of the matter. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable as the tax effect involved is less than the threshold limit prescribed by the latest CBDT circular. The objections raised by the assessee's AR were found to be correct.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not properly examined the assessee's explanation and that the assessee should be given another opportunity to produce evidence. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee received the rent amounts in subsequent years and offered them to tax in the year of receipt. Regarding Mobivil Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., it was noted that actual rent received and TDS deducted were not disputed. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer erred in considering the agreed rent instead of the actual rent received.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1603 days, accepting the assessee's reason that its staff were not well-trained in tax matters and that there was a lapse in filing the appeal on time. The Tribunal also noted the pandemic-related relaxations for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report obtained by the assessee was an afterthought, procured after the issuance of shares and during assessment proceedings, and thus not reliable. The AO was justified in rejecting the Merchant Banker's valuation and adopting the FMV as per Rule 11UA.
The Tribunal held that a General Power of Attorney (GPA) transaction does not convey title to immovable property, and therefore, the involvement of the assessee's son as a GPA holder did not invalidate the deduction. The assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the 75-day delay in filing the appeal. The reliance on judicial pronouncements was found to be distinguishable from the facts of the case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a 'cut and paste' order without proper application of mind. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the pending condonation petition before the CBDT. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the audit was completed late, necessitating the delay. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision after the CBDT's decision on the condonation petition.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 Lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn or not maintainable, in light of the CBDT circular. The Cross Objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted evidence of commission income and a different cash book with a higher opening balance. The AO had not raised specific queries about the commission receipts. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in the latest CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with a liberty to reinstate it if the scheme application was not accepted.
The Tribunal adjudicated on three main issues. Firstly, regarding the exclusion of five comparables due to the application of an upper turnover filter, the Tribunal held that since the TPO applied a lower turnover filter, an upper turnover filter should also be applied. Citing the Dun & Bradstreet classification and the Chennai Bench's decision in Kumaran Systems Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal directed the exclusion of companies with turnovers exceeding Rs.200 crores, as the assessee falls under the 'small size company' category (turnover up to Rs.200 crores). Secondly, concerning the inclusion of Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission. Referencing its own decisions in Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd. and Bangalore Bench decisions in Inteva Products India Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and KBACE Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that a company cannot be excluded based on persistent loss if it makes a profit in any one financial year out of three successive years. The Tribunal directed the TPO to include Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd. in the list of comparables. Thirdly, regarding the exclusion of Daffodil Software Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal observed that the company has revenue from product sales and lacks segmental details, similar to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude Daffodil Software Pvt. Ltd. from the list of comparables. The appeal was partly allowed.
The ITAT noted that the assessee is an NRI and had not participated in previous appellate proceedings due to her husband's demise and her NRI status, leading to previous orders being passed ex-parte. The Tribunal acknowledged the undertaking by the assessee's AR to participate diligently in future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that since the cash sales were reflected in the books of accounts, offered to tax, and supported by VAT returns and stock registers, the addition made by the AO amounted to double taxation and was not sustainable.
The Tribunal heard both parties and, in light of Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, found the revenue's appeal to be not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained proper audited books of accounts and discharged its burden of proving the source of cash deposits with documentary evidence. The AO failed to rebut the evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after the assessee files written submissions and pays a cost of ₹.2,000/-.
The Tribunal noted the considerable delays in filing the appeals and the failure of the assessee to provide proper documentation or representation, despite being given opportunities. Consequently, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had grounds for condonation of delay but the Id. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found merit in the assessee's arguments and noted that the order of the First Appellate Authority was not clear. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the First Appellate Authority for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that logo charges are revenue expenditure, following its own consistent decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's bonafide reasons. The Tribunal noted the assessee's undertaking to furnish documentary evidence and decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was unable to substantiate the source of cash deposits. While the AO estimated business income at 8% of the deposits, the CIT(A) reduced it to 5%. The Tribunal found this estimation reasonable and directed the AO to apply the same 5% estimation to the demonetization deposits as well, considering the transactions occurred throughout the year and were similar in nature.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10. Regarding the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB), the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which allowed deduction to the extent certified by DSIR in Form-3CL. The weighted deduction was not allowed on revenue expenditure of Rs. 28,91,706/- as it was not approved by DSIR, but 100% deduction under Section 37(1) was allowed. For the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which confirmed the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 1.73 Lakhs as per the assessee's request and in line with the co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was also dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding the apportionment of R&D expenditure to the 80IC unit, finding no infirmity. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2014-15 was dismissed as withdrawn/not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. The issues raised in the Revenue's appeal were left open for future proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd held that payments for the use/resale of off-the-shelf software are not royalty. Following this precedent, the Tribunal decided that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not royalty, and therefore, TDS deduction was not required.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of TDS not deposited to the government account is to be decided afresh by the Assessing Officer. Regarding the disallowance of interest payment, the Tribunal found that since no interest was actually paid but was a notional book entry capitalized into work-in-progress, the addition for non-deduction of TDS was not justified and was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the applications due to a technicality without providing sufficient opportunity for rectification. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to allow weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) only to the extent certified by DSIR was not infirm. Regarding the section 80IC claim, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding the apportionment of R&D expenditure. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024.
The Tribunal noted the considerable delays in filing the appeals and the failure of the assessee to provide proper documentation or representation, despite being given opportunities. Consequently, the appeals were deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263. The AO had already examined the issue, accepted the assessee's claim based on submitted evidence, and it was not a case of lack of inquiry. The land was recorded as agricultural, and the initial assessment, though reopened, eventually accepted the return without additions, indicating the issue was considered.
The Tribunal held that the pooja expenses of Rs. 1,03,372/- were a legitimate business expenditure, which had been claimed by the assessee and allowed by the Assessing Officer in both the original assessment and the reassessment. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's initiation of revision proceedings under Section 263 was without basis and therefore, quashed the revision order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the invalid currencies could not be treated as income. The assessee also submitted that due to circumstances beyond their control, they could not provide documentary evidence. The Tribunal considered remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
On the first issue, the Tribunal held that the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses should be allowed after, not before, allowing the deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd., which clarified that Section 10B deduction is to be computed at the stage of gross total income under Chapter IV, not at the stage of total income under Chapter VI. The AO was directed to allow the claim of deduction under Section 10B before setting off unabsorbed depreciation. On the second issue, the Tribunal held that refurbishment charges are integral and incidental to the export business and should be considered part of the export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10B(4). The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission and relied on the Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. M/s. Oliver Valves India Pvt. Ltd. on similar facts. The assessee's ground of appeal on this issue was allowed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to file submissions with necessary documents by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the application because the assessee ought to have filed under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) for fresh approval, but erroneously filed under clause (ii), which applies to trusts already approved and seeking re-approval. Citing its own decision in the case of M/s. Sri La Sri Sivanandha Mouna Swamigal Trust & ors. in ITA No. 873/Chny/2024 & Ors dated 24.06.2024, where the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to pass a speaking order on merits without technicalities, the Tribunal decided to remit both matters back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The grounds raised by the assessees were allowed for statistical purposes. The specific amount in dispute was not recorded. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in computing the total income by not considering the ITAT's order and directed recomputation based on the loss figure determined by the ITAT. The Tribunal also found error in the AO's calculation of interest under Section 234B and directed its recomputation.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the Assessing Officer should have applied the percentage method, as pleaded before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax cash deposits during the demonetization period under Section 69A and to tax other cash deposits at 8%, considering it a reasonable estimation.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and conducted detailed inquiries, concluding that R&D expenditure was not required to be allocated to the Assam unit. The PCIT's revision under Section 263 was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to allow weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) only to the extent certified by DSIR was not infirm. Regarding the section 80IC claim, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order regarding the apportionment of R&D expenditure. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that similar issues for prior years (AY 2005-06 & 2006-07) were resolved in favour of the assessee, and there was no change in the trust's activities. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer disallowed 30% of miscellaneous expenses on estimation basis without examining the details. The CIT(A) also failed to adequately examine the details of cash payments for garden maintenance, printing & stationery, and subscriptions. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submissions regarding these cash payments.