Loading ITAT cases…
345 orders · Page 4 of 7
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it was observed that for the same cause of action, one appeal was already remanded for fresh assessment, rendering the present appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the 420-day delay, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's medical condition. It set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the assessment back to the AO for a de novo assessment after hearing the assessee, based on principles of justice and a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1970 days, finding the reasons compelling and in the interest of natural justice, citing the Supreme Court's general exemption for limitation periods due to Covid-19. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying Rs.5,000/- as costs to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(E), restoring the applications, subject to the assessee depositing Rs.5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority and providing proof.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's personal difficulties and the lack of willful defiance. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a last opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation for non-compliance to be adequate. The Tribunal held that the matter concerning cash deposits was not objectively analyzed by the lower authorities and that justice would be met by giving the assessee one last opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the case was remanded for reconsideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to its smallness and the technical reasons provided. While deprecating the assessee's non-response, the Tribunal restored the matter to the FAA for fresh adjudication to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's ill-health as a valid reason. The appeal was allowed to be heard on merits, with a direction to pay costs.
The Tribunal held that the issues were not objectively analyzed by the lower authorities and that ends of justice would be met by giving the assessee one last opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte, and that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues of limitation or merits, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA, noting the reasons provided were sufficient and the delay was not inordinate. The Tribunal set aside the order of the FAA and remitted the matter back for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the matter concerning the sources of unexplained cash deposits was not objectively analyzed by the lower authorities. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one last opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal found that the ex parte orders violated natural justice, as the assessee was incapacitated due to his wife's death. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee, in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that once an assessee opts for the presumptive taxation under Section 44BB, no further additions or disallowances are permissible. The disallowance made under Section 143(1) was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect. Regarding the cross-objection, the Tribunal allowed the exemption for expenses incurred before the sale of the original asset, relying on judicial precedents. The Tribunal also directed verification of architect fees and considered the delay in construction due to COVID-19.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of these additional grounds, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the ex parte orders violated natural justice, as the assessee was incapacitated due to his wife's death. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee, in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the inability to appear before the CIT(A). Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with due opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the loan was obtained for acquiring a capital asset, making the related foreign exchange fluctuation loss capital in nature. Consequently, it cannot be considered a business expenditure and is not deductible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee was not aware of the order and had not been given adequate opportunity of being heard. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the Ld.CIT(E), restoring the applications, subject to the assessee depositing Rs.5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority and providing proof.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the Foreign Tax Credit.
The Tribunal noted that the orders of the lower authorities were not speaking orders and lacked clear facts. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's conduct was unsatisfactory in terms of compliance. Therefore, one last opportunity was granted to the assessee to present its case and evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the unaddressed delay in filing and the assessee's continuous non-appearance. It emphasized that the law only aids vigilant litigants, and the assessee's conduct indicated disinterest in pursuing the case.
The Tribunal acknowledged the cash-intensive nature of the assessee's business. After considering that some cash withdrawals were redeposited, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the AO to restrict the addition for unexplained cash deposits from Rs.29,22,400/- to Rs.15,22,400/-.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 jurisdiction. The AO's order was not erroneous as it was based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate, and no incriminating material was found during the search.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for delay reasonable, condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not objectively and comprehensively analyzed the case merits regarding cash credits and estimated business income. It remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh de novo adjudication, providing the assessee one last opportunity to present their case and evidence, and set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's submission about not receiving notices due to an incorrect email address provided in Form-35. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid because the Assessing Officer did not obtain prior approval from the specified authority as required by Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), which was the authority specified for cases where more than three years had elapsed.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without proper service of the assessment order is not justified. The AO must follow strict provisions of Section 282 for service. The delay was condoned.
The Tribunal condoned a 534-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the repeated non-compliance by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and the need for detailed submissions, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This remand is subject to the assessee paying ₹50,000/- as costs to the State Legal Aid Authority within 30 days.
The Tribunal held that Service Tax and GST should not be included in the turnover for determining the applicability of Section 44AB. It also ruled that invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 does not bar filing an appeal.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards short-term capital gains tax of ₹2,38,63,452, confirmed by the CIT(A), stands deleted. The Tribunal reasoned that the revaluation of assets by CRCL LLP does not attract capital gains tax as it does not involve a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Act. The induction of Elior India Catering LLP and the consequent reduction in the share ratio of existing partners do not amount to a relinquishment of their rights in CRCL LLP. The Tribunal clarified that upon the introduction of a new partner, there is only a realignment of share ratios for sharing profits or losses, which does not constitute a transfer. The assets remain with the firm, and partners do not have a defined share in the firm's assets during its subsistence. The Tribunal also noted that the amendments to Section 45(4) and Section 9B of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2017-18. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that held that the realignment of profit-sharing ratios on the introduction of new partners does not result in capital gains. The stay application was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the comparable companies selected by the TPO/DRP were functionally dissimilar. Specifically, companies like Great Software Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., IDS Infotech Ltd., K Solves India Ltd., Systango Technologies Ltd., and Consilient Technologies Pvt. Ltd. were found to be engaged in diversified high-end functions such as Generative AI, machine learning, Big Data, Blockchain, and various engineering services, which were not comparable to the assessee's software development services. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in HP PPS Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT and SanDisk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, which established that functionally dissimilar companies and those with diversified services should be excluded. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of these five comparable companies. The appeal was allowed on this ground, leading to the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment.
The Tribunal condoned the 1-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding sufficient reason. The Tribunal also noted that the FAA should have given the assessee an opportunity to provide evidence for the delay before dismissing the appeal in limine.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the addition of Rs. 4,17,789/- received from the husband's aunt, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had initially claimed it as a gift from her husband's aunt but later changed her stand to suggest the gift was meant for her husband. The Tribunal found this change in stand without adequate proof to be an attempt to avoid the rigors of Section 56(2)(vii). Since the husband's aunt was not considered a relative under the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii), the AO correctly brought this sum under taxation. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,17,789/- was confirmed. However, concerning the additions of Rs. 2,30,000/- as personal savings and Rs. 5,01,374/- received as loan repayments, the Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted sufficient evidence to support her claims of savings and loan advancements/repayments. Accordingly, these additions made under Section 69A were deleted. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication, with directions to grant the assessee proper opportunity to present its case and furnish complete details.
The Tribunal noted that a significant portion of the delay (269 days) fell within the Covid-19 period covered by the Supreme Court's order. While acknowledging the assessee's non-cooperation, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay, if any, upon payment of ₹5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority, and then decide the appeal on merits after considering fresh submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was not justified, especially considering the assessee opted for the presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AD. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished complete details before them and, given the old assessment year, decided to consider the materials filed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's participation in the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and the settlement of the disputed tax. Consequently, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn and was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Explanation inserted to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective in nature and not retrospective. Therefore, disallowance under Section 14A can only be made to the extent of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and had filed Form No. 2 with an acknowledgement number dated 14.05.2025 for AY 2021-22, towards the settlement of the pending tax dispute. In view of these facts, the Tribunal found that the appeal filed by the assessee was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed by the assessee's authorized representative. The Tribunal also noted that it was open to the assessee to approach the Tribunal by filing an appropriate application if any prejudice was caused concerning the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal and condoned it. However, since the assessee's application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income u/s.119(2)(b) was pending before the Competent Authority, the Tribunal restored the case to the AO to await the Competent Authority's decision.
The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's reasons for non-compliance before the CIT(A), including medical evidence of a head injury. Given this, and the Revenue's concession, the ITAT directed the CIT(A) to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present their case and decide the issues on merits. The assessee is also mandated to furnish all necessary details before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal addressed two primary grievances of the assessee concerning the computation of the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). Firstly, regarding foreign exchange fluctuation loss, the Tribunal noted that the lower authorities held it to be an operating item, implying disagreement with the assessee's claim that it was extraordinary. However, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's finding or reasoning on this specific point, only that the assessee pointed out the "infirmity in the order of the lower authorities holding the foreign exchange loss to be an operating item." Secondly, concerning product development expenses, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea. Citing its own decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal directed the TPO to consider the adjustment of product development expenses in light of the view taken in earlier Assessment Years (2012-13 & 2014-15), requiring the assessee to provide substantiating data. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a legal right to produce additional evidence under Rule-46A of the Income Tax Rules, and the CIT(A) had violated this right by rejecting the request for admission of evidence without proper consideration. The CIT(A)'s rejection was not based on a correct understanding of the facts or the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). The order of the CIT(E) was set aside and directed for reconsideration.