Loading ITAT cases…
250 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the deposits were made by the assessees from their own funds, violating principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination and relying on assumptions. The assessment order of the company also did not make similar additions.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the deposits were made by the assessees from their own funds, violating principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination and relying on assumptions. The assessment order of the company also did not make similar additions.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the deposits were made by the assessees from their own funds, violating principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination and relying on assumptions. The assessment order of the company also did not make similar additions.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the deposits were made by the assessees from their own funds, violating principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination and relying on assumptions. The assessment order of the company also did not make similar additions.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the deposits were made by the assessees from their own funds, violating principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination and relying on assumptions. The assessment order of the company also did not make similar additions.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the deposits were made by the assessees from their own funds, violating principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination and relying on assumptions. The assessment order of the company also did not make similar additions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal under Section 249(4)(b) without considering that the payment of advance tax is not applicable in reopened cases. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the deposits were made by the assessees from their own funds, violating principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination and relying on assumptions. The assessment order of the company also did not make similar additions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer without sufficient justification and by shifting the burden of proof. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the unsecured loans and advances, and thus the additions made by the Assessing Officer should be restored.
The Tribunal noted that the CPC had subsequently allowed the deduction under Section 10AA through a rectification order. Therefore, the appeal before the Tribunal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the upward adjustment of Rs. 7,25,09,110/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of the downward adjustment of payment of management fees is not justified. The Tribunal noted that the management services are integrally related to the conduct of the assessee's business and that the 5% markup applied by the assessee appears reasonable. It was also observed that the revenue had been inconsistent in its treatment of these charges in past years, which violates the principle of consistency. The Tribunal found that the TPO's determination of ALP as Nil was not in accordance with the statutory mandate, as it did not apply any prescribed method. The Tribunal relied on its own co-ordinate bench decisions in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 and 2015-16, where similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that there was no distinguishing fact between the present case and the earlier years for which relief was granted. Therefore, the order of the lower authorities was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the impugned addition. All grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish bank statements and reconciliation during appellate proceedings. Considering the interest of natural justice and the assessee's prayer, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to bonafide reasons. The addition on account of unexplained cash deposits was partly allowed by reducing it based on the assessee's earning and saving attitude. The addition on account of the differential property value was deleted due to lack of DVO report.
The Tribunal held that merely accepting and depositing SBNs up to the appointed date (31.12.2016) does not automatically make the source of cash deposits unexplained. The explanation offered by the assessee for the deposits out of ordinary business activity cannot be rejected solely for violating certain notifications.
The Tribunal held that an order passed by the CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act is an administrative order and is not appealable before the Appellate Tribunal as it is not listed in Section 253(1) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the outstanding trade receivables from AEs constitute an 'international transaction' in light of the amendment to Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2012. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the charging of interest on these receivables. Citing decisions from coordinate benches and High Courts, including the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. and Trimble Information Technologies India Private Limited, the Tribunal noted that when the assessee is a debt-free company and does not charge interest on similar receivables from third parties, no transfer pricing adjustment for imputing interest income on outstanding trade receivables is warranted. The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were akin to those in the cited judicial precedents. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,59,85,448/-. The issue of primary and secondary adjustments was examined, but the primary focus remained on the interest on receivables.
The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence for the claim. Considering the assessee's readiness to provide details and an undertaking from its CEO, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer denied the deduction solely on the ground of non-compliance with sub-section (4) of section 54F without verifying compliance with sub-section (1). Citing a precedent, the Tribunal noted that non-compliance with a procedural requirement should not deny the benefit.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act is applicable only to entities whose purpose is the advancement of any other object of general public utility, not to the first six limbs of charitable purposes, including medical relief. The Tribunal found that the fees collected were minimal and the trust's activities fell under medical relief.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's application for retrospective approval u/s.10(46) was pending with the CBDT, the matter should be remanded to the AO. The AO is to await the CBDT's decision and pass a fresh assessment order accordingly.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's application for retrospective approval u/s.10(46) was pending with the CBDT, the matter should be remanded to the AO. The AO is to await the CBDT's decision and pass a fresh assessment order accordingly.
The Tribunal noted that Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee before the CIT(A), which challenged the validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147 read with Section 149(1) of the Act, was not adjudicated by the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s order did not address this specific ground. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate Ground No. 2. The CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the law. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings and appear before the CIT(A) on the date of hearing. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed within the time limit as the notice was served by affixture. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that only the peak credit should be considered, which was Rs. 16,00,000/-. Further, it was held that Rs. 8,00,000/- could be presumed to be from retirement benefits, and the balance addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was within the prescribed time limit. It noted that the Section 148 notice was issued on 28.03.2019, returned unserved, and subsequently served by affixture on 03.10.2019. Therefore, the assessment order passed on 28.09.2021 was considered within the time limit prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Act, read with the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The legal ground raised by the assessee was rejected. On merits, the Tribunal found that the AO had made the addition of the entire cash deposits without considering withdrawals. It agreed with the assessee that only the peak credit, which was Rs. 16,00,000/-, should have been considered. While the assessee claimed past savings and retirement benefits, evidence was not provided. The Tribunal presumed that Rs. 8,00,000/- could have originated from retirement benefits. Accordingly, the addition was sustained to the extent of Rs. 8,00,000/-, and the balance addition was deleted. The appeal was partly allowed. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal found that the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income, as evidenced by the assessment order and the Section 274 notice. The argument that the notice was vague was rejected. On merits, since Rs. 8,00,000/- was sustained as concealed income in the quantum appeal, the penalty was upheld to that extent. The AO was directed to recompute the penalty on Rs. 8,00,000/-. This appeal was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions with identical facts, held that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period, explained by agricultural income and sale proceeds, should not be added as unexplained income. The procedural lapse in issuing show-cause notices under one section and passing the order under another was also addressed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it. Subsequently, considering the assessee's request for withdrawal, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in not comparing a manufacturing entity's GP with a trading entity and in using the assessee's past average net profit. It also held that taxing the same cash deposits twice, once as sales and again as unexplained investment, was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal. It found no violation of Section 13(1)(c) as the vehicle was used for the trust's objectives and not for the trustee's personal benefit. The surplus from book sales was also correctly deleted as it was passed on as discounts to other charitable institutions.
The Tribunal held that software license subscription fees are not royalty and annual maintenance fees are not 'fee for included services' under the India-USA DTAA, following its own previous decisions and Supreme Court rulings. The 'make available' condition for FIS was not met.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable because the cost of the immovable property was not debited to the Profit and Loss account. The AO incorrectly fastened TDS liability on stamp valuation rather than the actual payment made.
The Tribunal held that Section 194IA and Rule 37BA are applicable only to assessable income and not exempt income. The AO/CPC incorrectly denied TDS credit by misapplying Rule 37BA.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior ruling. The royalty payment was deemed revenue in nature and an allowable expenditure, based on assignment and user agreements sanctioned by the High Court.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior ruling. The royalty payment was deemed revenue in nature and an allowable expenditure, based on assignment and user agreements sanctioned by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the self-generation tax collected by TNEB, as per the Tamil Nadu Tax on consumption or sale of Electricity Act, 2005, is in the nature of a statutory tax. Therefore, it is disallowable under Section 43B if unpaid.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 153(5) of the Income Tax Act. It also noted that the AO failed to provide the assessee with a copy of the Department of Economic Affairs report, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior ruling. The royalty payment was deemed revenue in nature and an allowable expenditure, based on assignment and user agreements sanctioned by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO was invalid as the relevant provisions were omitted. It restored the matter to the AO for examining the expenditure under Section 40A(2)(b). The Tribunal also noted that the time limit for passing the assessment order had expired.
The Tribunal held that additional grounds of appeal can be entertained if they do not require additional material and can be adjudicated with existing records, citing Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds for adjudication. Regarding the downward adjustment of approximately Rs.11 Crores for non-US entities (issue 2), the Tribunal set aside the issue and restored it to the file of the Ld. TPO for consideration of similarity with US transactions and application of MAP treatment if found correct. The Ld. TPO was directed to pass a speaking order. This amended ground was partly allowed. Concerning the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) (issue 3), the Tribunal found that lower authorities had not presented clear facts and that MAP proceedings necessitated revisiting the issue. The order of lower authorities was set aside, and the issue was remitted to the Ld. AO for readjudication with a speaking order. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the disallowance of bad debts (issue 4), the Tribunal noted the Ld. AO's finding of insufficient evidence and the DRP's confirmation. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the merits of this ground but noted that the assessee had succeeded in terms of remission of issues on merits, and therefore, additional grounds 1 & 2 were kept open, implying this ground might be implicitly covered by the overall outcome or was not pressed further in light of other remissions. The Tribunal also directed the Ld. AO to adjudicate the additional ground concerning ESOPs (Additional Ground No.3) after giving due opportunity, allowing it for statistical purposes. Additional grounds 1 & 2 were kept open as the assessee succeeded in terms of remission of issues.
The Tribunal held that the action of the DRP in confirming the TPO's order by considering irrelevant facts was evident. The AO's downward adjustment was based on the premise of non-submission of supporting evidence, which was prima facie incorrect. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the TPO for de novo adjudication regarding the transfer pricing adjustments (grounds 2.1 to 2.6), with due opportunity to the assessee. Similarly, ground 2.13 concerning margin computation was also remitted to the AO for readjudication, as it had a bearing on the first set of grounds. For the corporate addition (grounds 3.1 to 3.3), the Tribunal found prima facie truth in the assessee's submissions that the expenditure was already offered for taxation. The DRP's confirmation of the AO's order was found to be not based on a correct appreciation of facts. Therefore, this ground was also remitted to the AO for de novo adjudication. The Stay Application was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based not only on the director's statement but also on incriminating documents found during the search and corroborated by excise records. The assessee failed to provide cogent documentary evidence to support their claims of miscalculation or limited scope of over-invoicing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, considering the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal in order to avail the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in comparing unaudited P&L with audited P&L without appreciating that the survey was to examine stock and compare it with audited books. It also found that the excess stock valuation was based on a notional GP rate and MRP, without considering discounts, GST, or GAAP/ICDS norms.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not tenable when the quantum addition was purely based on estimation. Relying on a High Court decision, it was observed that penalty cannot be imposed based solely on an estimation of income.
The Tribunal directed the AO to compute Section 14A disallowances considering only investments yielding exempt income. It allowed depreciation on capital subsidy, stating it cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the asset. For weighted deduction, the issue was remanded to await DSIR's reply.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the ex parte assessment order, directing a de novo assessment. The penalty appeal was also set aside to be decided after the de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging a reasonable cause. The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence of collecting fees and remitting them to the university, and estimated 8% of the cash deposit as the assessee's net income from business.
The Tribunal held that the inadvertent mistake in mentioning 'religious-cum-charitable' in Form 10AB should not be a ground to deny registration as a charitable institution, especially when the Memorandum of Association specifies charitable objects. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed it to consider the application afresh.
The assessees expressed their desire to withdraw the appeals as they had accepted the profit estimated by the Ld.CIT(A). The Department did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot sit in judgment over the report submitted by the prescribed authority (DSIR) in Form 3CL. The survey findings, being subsequent to the DSIR's approval, did not impact the validity of the deduction.