Loading ITAT cases…
317 orders · Page 6 of 7
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not submitted crucial documents like valuation reports, bank statements, and sale deeds before the lower authorities. In the interest of substantial justice, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary powers under Section 263 were not properly invoked for disallowing depreciation on goodwill and disallowing deduction under Section 35(2AB) without proper verification. However, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's direction to re-verify the set-off of brought forward losses and computation of book profit under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee neither appeared before the CIT(A) nor before the Tribunal. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A). The appeal was set aside for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity and source of the gifts, including the donors' income tax returns and sale agreements for agricultural land. The amendment requiring explanation of the 'source of source' was not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking Section 263 jurisdiction. The TPO's acceptance of the assessee's ALP, supported by judicial precedents and the jurisdictional High Court's view on divergent opinions, was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground challenging the validity of reopening under Section 147, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s comprehensive analysis. However, the issue regarding the write-off of loans to Titan International Holdings BV was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication due to additional evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the ownership of the FD was sub judice. It set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the interest income taxation only after the High Court decides the ownership.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds of appeal as required by law. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)'s file.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation. As the notice under Section 148 was issued on 20.03.2018, the assessment order should have been passed within nine months from the end of the financial year, i.e., by 31.12.2018.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. However, upon being informed that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after considering the documents filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the liability to pay advance tax in respect of capital gains arises only after the transaction has taken place. Since the assessee paid the advance tax on March 31, 2019, and the department did not dispute that the entire tax liability was paid by the financial year-end, no additional interest under Section 234C was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed the return of income within the extended due date as per the CBDT order. Therefore, the denial of deduction under Section 80IA was erroneous.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order due to procedural infirmities and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo assessment, directing the assessee to cooperate. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for negligence.
The Tribunal noted that the territorial jurisdiction of an ITAT bench is determined by the location of the AO's office. Since the AO's office was in Kolkata, the appeals should have been filed before the Kolkata Benches, not the Chennai Bench. The preliminary objection raised by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity of hearing before the AO and CIT(A). Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of lower authorities and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the issue of taxation of interest income only after the High Court decides on the ownership of the FD.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has a statutory right of appeal and the delay was not deliberate, being caused by the illness of the auditor. The Tribunal condoned the 64-day delay in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 54F, the new residential house need not be purchased in the assessee's own name. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the deduction should be allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not aware of the notices due to technical issues and being out of station. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity for a hearing.
The tribunal found a violation of natural justice regarding the agricultural land sale due to the non-provision of the inspector's report. The issue of unexplained cash withdrawals was also restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the interest income should reduce construction costs and that Section 14A disallowance was not applicable when no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding book profit adjustments and the verification of interest on delayed TDS.
The Tribunal held that the issue of working capital adjustments is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12. The Tribunal noted that Rule 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, mandates adjustments for differences in comparability analysis. The assessee had demonstrated a difference in working capital days (16.29 days for the assessee vs. 58.44 days for comparables), which materially affects operating margins. The Tribunal, in respectful compliance with the cited decision, directed the Ld. TPO to recompute transfer pricing adjustments de novo, considering working capital adjustments. This effectively sets aside the order of lower authorities on this issue and allows the ground for statistical purposes. Regarding the disallowance under section 14A, the Tribunal found the AO's approach to be casual and bereft of application of mind, making the disallowance on an ad-hoc basis. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of lower authorities and directed the Ld. AO to re-adjudicate the matter de novo, giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. This ground was also allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held as follows: 1. Regarding the disallowance of employee's contribution towards PF (Ground III), the Tribunal found that the challan and bank statement evidenced payment on 14.02.2020, which was within the due date of 15.02.2020. The discrepancy in the tax audit report was an inadvertent error. The name change issue was also addressed. The AO was directed to verify the payment date and allow the deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid within the due date. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. 2. Regarding the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill (Grounds IV), the Tribunal held that the goodwill arose on demerger sanctioned by NCLT and was not self-generated. It relied on various judicial pronouncements, including Trivitron Healthcare (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT, to hold that the sixth proviso to Section 32(1) is not applicable to goodwill arising on demerger. The Tribunal also noted that amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, disallowing depreciation on goodwill are effective from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, depreciation on goodwill arising out of demerger was to be allowed under Section 32 for the concerned assessment year. Grounds 4.1 to 4.3 were allowed. 3. Regarding TDS and TCS credit (Ground 6.4), the AO was directed to verify the claims and grant due credit as per law. This ground was allowed. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the TP adjustment of Rs.4,41,015/- on trade receivables, as it was not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that payments made for services utilized in a business carried on outside India for earning income from a source outside India are excluded from the deeming provisions of Section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act. Warranty obligations are part of sales transactions and not fees for technical services.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the issue of taxation of interest income only after the High Court decides on the ownership of the FD.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the issue on merits, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to show the cash deposits were from stamp paper sales and were subsequently remitted to the government treasury. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged only in the collection and transportation of solid waste, which is a part of solid waste management but not the entire system as required for the deduction. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under Section 80IA(4).
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely collecting and transporting waste, which constituted a work contract and not the operation and maintenance of a solid waste management system as an infrastructure facility. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IA(4) was not admissible.
The Tribunal held that creditors written off and discount receipts are inextricably linked to business income and only the profit embedded (8%) should be added. However, bank interest income was upheld as 'other income' to be taxed fully.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had applied his mind and taken a plausible view after due inquiry. The PCIT cannot substitute his own view for that of the AO if the AO's view is legally sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society subject to departmental statutory audit, and any delay in this audit is beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the delay in filing the TAR was due to a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits, as the delay in filing was within the extended period due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the AO issued only two notices before making additions, and the assessee pleaded violation of natural justice. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
The ITAT noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating the grounds of appeal as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has a statutory right of appeal and the delay was not deliberate, being caused by the illness of the auditor. The Tribunal condoned the 64-day delay in filing the appeals.
The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal regarding the transfer of funds and unexplained investment, but upheld the addition for unexplained cash credits. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order without a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard and therefore set aside the order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed its Return of Income within the time allowed under Section 139(4A) of the Act, as clarified by CBDT Circular No.F.No.173/193/2019-ITA-I dated 23.04.2019. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not following this circular, as it mandates rectification of orders where exemption is denied due to belated filing within the permissible timeframe.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed details supporting their contentions regarding an organized business activity and linking alleged cash deposits to this activity. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made a case for non-consideration of these details by the lower appellate authority.
The Tribunal held that the nomenclature of entries in the books of account does not determine the nature of a claim. Even if expenses are debited to the securities premium account, an assessee can still claim them as deductible if they are otherwise allowable under the Act. The Tribunal found that the retail bonds were issued for the assessee's money-lending business, and the proceeds were for 'infrastructure lending', establishing a clear business connection. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT and the CBDT Circular, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 72,34,85,405/-. Regarding the Revenue's appeal concerning Section 14A, the Tribunal noted that the general ground was dismissed. For other grounds related to Section 14A, the Tribunal observed that new arguments regarding tax credit for income offered under Section 115U were not considered by lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to consider these alternative arguments, make inquiries from Venture Capital Funds (VCFs), and pass an appropriate order.
The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal regarding the transfer of funds and unexplained investment, but upheld the addition for unexplained cash credits. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order without a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard and therefore set aside the order.
The CIT(A) partially allowed the appeal regarding the transfer of funds and unexplained investment, but upheld the addition for unexplained cash credits. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order without a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard and therefore set aside the order.
The Tribunal held that the nomenclature of entries in the books of account does not determine the nature of a claim. Even if expenses are debited to the securities premium account, an assessee can still claim them as deductible if they are otherwise allowable under the Act. The Tribunal found that the retail bonds were issued for the assessee's money-lending business, and the proceeds were for 'infrastructure lending', establishing a clear business connection. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT and the CBDT Circular, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 72,34,85,405/-. Regarding the Revenue's appeal concerning Section 14A, the Tribunal noted that the general ground was dismissed. For other grounds related to Section 14A, the Tribunal observed that new arguments regarding tax credit for income offered under Section 115U were not considered by lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO to consider these alternative arguments, make inquiries from Venture Capital Funds (VCFs), and pass an appropriate order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely collecting and transporting waste, which constituted a work contract and not the operation and maintenance of a solid waste management system as an infrastructure facility. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IA(4) was not admissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely collecting and transporting waste, which constituted a work contract and not the operation and maintenance of a solid waste management system as an infrastructure facility. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IA(4) was not admissible.
The Tribunal held that payments made for services utilized in a business carried on outside India for earning income from a source outside India are excluded from the deeming provisions of Section 9(1) of the Income Tax Act. Warranty obligations are part of sales transactions and not fees for technical services.
While noting the assessee's negligence, the tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant another opportunity for hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the initial valuation report furnished by the assessee was flawed as it did not consider loan liabilities. The CIT(A) directed the AO to obtain FMV from two independent valuers, but this direction was found to be restricted in scope. The Tribunal, following a High Court decision, held that the AO needs to undertake a de novo fact-finding exercise to determine the FMV of shares as per Section 56(2)(viib) and its explanation.