Loading ITAT cases…
345 orders · Page 6 of 7
The Tribunal noted that the present appeal was a duplicate and had become infructuous. The assessee's application for withdrawal of the duplicate appeal was allowed, as the Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to produce all relevant bank statements and evidence. The assessee's counsel assured that due compliances would be made.
The Tribunal found prima facie evidence of a violation of Rule 46A, as new evidences were submitted before the CIT(A) without affording the AO an opportunity to examine them. Since the assessee did not appear, indicating a lack of interest, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the order of the AO.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was condonable due to the unfortunate demise of the auditor and the prevailing Covid-19 restrictions. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and set aside the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds. It held that the assessee's continuous non-appearance and failure to explain the delay violated the principle that law aids only a vigilant litigant.
The tribunal affirmed the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs under Section 69A, finding that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transaction or the source of the funds. Citing the Supreme Court on tax avoidance, the tribunal emphasized the taxpayer's obligation to be honest and provide complete facts, thus confirming the order of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed a condonation application for the delayed filing of the return of income before the CCIT, which was pending. Considering this, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer, directing them to await the CCIT's decision on the condonation application and then decide the matter in accordance with law.
The Tribunal observed that the additional evidences were not filed before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the assessment back to the file of the AO for admitting the additional evidences and re-assessing the income.
The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by rejecting additional evidence without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to explain its non-submission to the AO. It also noted the Ld.CIT(A) failed to follow the two-stage opportunity under Rule 46A. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside and remanded to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the first appellate order were ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to file relevant documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not confront the assessee with the defects in the documents nor gave an opportunity to explain shortcomings, violating principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the application was restored to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A)'s order confirming disallowances was not infructuous, as the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment was quashed by the ITAT. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the 307-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de-novo assessment, directing the AO to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 15,000/- on the assessee for non-participation in earlier proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without affording adequate opportunity to the assessees, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The appeals were allowed, and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the original application was filed under an incorrect sub-section and deemed it appropriate, in the interest of natural justice and equity, to condone the delay in filing the correct application. The application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) was set aside and restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) for fresh consideration and to pass an order in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's lack of awareness. It set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was levied on the assessee for non-participation in proceedings.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, held that the assessee should be taxed on net receipts, not gross receipts, even if exemption is denied due to delayed filing.
The Tribunal noted that remitting the matter for condonation of delay and fresh adjudication would not serve any purpose, as the disallowances were fully supported by statutory provisions and the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Checkmate Services. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in rectification proceedings without allowing the AO to verify it, violating natural justice. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination of both the property purchase from relatives as per the second proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and the explanation of payment for stamp duty.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitting the case back for readjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay of 107 days and to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's explanation and the lack of wilful default. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and the Designated Authority had issued Form No.4. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the 72-day delay in filing the appeals. While deprecating the assessee's non-response, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity, restoring the issues to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 107 days, noting the sufficient cause presented by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty does not survive when the underlying disallowance has been deleted by a co-ordinate bench in quantum proceedings, as it is a judicially settled view. Therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have waited for the outcome of the condonation application. Since the condonation petition was allowed by the CCIT, the appeal was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) to deal with the claim u/s 80P.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While acknowledging the assessee's habitual default in appearing before appellate authorities, the Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice and natural justice, set aside the orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was absent from India due to compelling circumstances, which constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalties imposed were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was absent from India due to compelling circumstances, which constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalties imposed were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a denovo hearing on merits, in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While acknowledging the assessee's habitual default in appearing before appellate authorities, the Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice and natural justice, set aside the orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the 72-day delay in filing the appeals. While deprecating the assessee's non-response, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity, restoring the issues to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that procedural irregularities in filing the addendum to Form 3CEB should not deny substantial justice. It found that the sale of shares by a director did not constitute business restructuring for the assessee. The matter was remanded to the TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a vague penalty notice, failing to specify the exact charge or limb under Section 270A or 271AAB, is a jurisdictional defect and vitiates the penalty proceedings. Such defects cannot be cured by Section 292B of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the cash deposit of Rs. 2,37,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee had consistently declared agricultural income, and the deposit was considered to be from past savings and current income.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order without complete participation of the assessee and confirming an ex-parte order from the AO. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law as they failed to specify the exact charge or limb under Section 270A and Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the revenue's appeal. It allowed the assessee's appeal by holding that the reference to the TPO was not time-barred, and dismissed the revenue's appeal by finding no violation of Rule 46A regarding the acceptance of segmentation data.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application finding the activities to be commercial. However, considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration along with a fresh application for registration under Section 12A.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 233 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging sufficient cause. Despite deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, restored the matter to the files of the First Appellate Authority. The assessee is directed to file a rejoinder to the remand report and furnish necessary evidence to substantiate the source of the Rs. 70,67,200/-.
The Tribunal addressed several issues. Regarding the limitation of the TPO's order (Issue 1), the judgment does not explicitly state a finding but implies it was adjudicated as part of the consolidated order. On the rejection of the TP study (Issue 2), the judgment does not provide a specific finding. For economic adjustments (Issue 3), the Tribunal remitted the issue of foreign exchange loss to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the jurisdictional Tribunal's decision in Hyundai Motor India Ltd. and the assessee's own case. The Tribunal held that a provision for obsolescence (Issue 7) is not allowable as a deduction, as loss is allowed only upon actual sale, following its own decision in the assessee's case. However, it directed the AO to rework opening and closing stock for AY 2014-15 by considering disallowances made in AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15. For depreciation on software (Issue 8), the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, allowing higher depreciation by following the jurisdictional High Court decision in CIT Vs Computer Age Management Services P Ltd. Similarly, for the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for reimbursement of seconded employees cost (Issue 9), the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, deleting the disallowance based on its own prior decision in the assessee's case. The judgment does not provide specific findings on entity-level adjustments (Issue 4) or the rejection/selection of comparable companies for software development services (Issue 5) and risk adjustments (Issue 6). The revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. The ground challenging the validity of assessment proceedings due to limitation was dismissed as it was not pressed by the assessee. 2. Regarding the inclusion of Foundation Brakes Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable for AY 2021-22, the Tribunal did not provide a specific finding or decision in the provided extract. The arguments from both sides are detailed, but the ultimate holding on this specific point is not present in the excerpt. 3. The Tribunal held that the AO's action in computing the assessed income for AY 2020-21 did not result in any grievance to the assessee, rendering the ground infructuous and dismissing it. 4. For the levy of interest under Section 234A for AY 2021-22, the Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have discharged the entire tax liability within the original due date (30.11.2021). The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for verification of taxes paid and, upon satisfaction, to delete the interest levied under Section 234A. 5. For the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C and short credit of TCS for AY 2021-22, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea. The matter was remitted back to the AO for examination of the TCS claim and, upon satisfaction, to grant appropriate credit and compute consequential interest under Sections 234B and 234C as applicable. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the finding on the inclusion of Foundation Brakes Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. is missing from the provided text.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notices issued for levying penalties were bad in law because they did not clearly specify the charges or faults against the assessees. This lack of specificity prejudiced the assessees' ability to defend themselves, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal allowed depreciation on software in favor of the assessee and dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground. The issue of foreign exchange loss was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The provision for obsolescence was disallowed, but the AO was directed to rework opening and closing stock considering prior year disallowances.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. The ground challenging the validity of assessment proceedings due to limitation was dismissed as it was not pressed by the assessee. 2. Regarding the inclusion of Foundation Brakes Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable for AY 2021-22, the Tribunal did not provide a specific finding or decision in the provided extract. The arguments from both sides are detailed, but the ultimate holding on this specific point is not present in the excerpt. 3. The Tribunal held that the AO's action in computing the assessed income for AY 2020-21 did not result in any grievance to the assessee, rendering the ground infructuous and dismissing it. 4. For the levy of interest under Section 234A for AY 2021-22, the Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have discharged the entire tax liability within the original due date (30.11.2021). The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for verification of taxes paid and, upon satisfaction, to delete the interest levied under Section 234A. 5. For the levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C and short credit of TCS for AY 2021-22, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea. The matter was remitted back to the AO for examination of the TCS claim and, upon satisfaction, to grant appropriate credit and compute consequential interest under Sections 234B and 234C as applicable. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the finding on the inclusion of Foundation Brakes Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. is missing from the provided text.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee's grounds concerning procedural irregularity and the time-barring of proceedings were not explicitly decided in the provided extract, as the focus shifted to the transfer pricing and segmentation issues. Regarding the transfer pricing grounds, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of Exilant Technologies Private Limited from the comparable set, allowing the Assessee's related grounds of appeal. The reasoning was based on Exilant Technologies having a turnover greater than Rs. 200 Crores, which is a criterion for exclusion, and its business activities including maintaining over 20 international patent applications, with no segmental or revenue break-up provided in its annual report. For the Revenue's appeal concerning the segmentation approach, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds. The reasoning was that the Assessee had not furnished any additional evidence before the CIT(A). The Assessee had merely brought to the CIT(A)'s notice that the TPO had accepted the same segmentation approach in a subsequent year (AY 2021-22), and this approach was followed in the current year (AY 2018-19). Therefore, there was no violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules.
The Tribunal noted that Ground No. 2 regarding the validity of the final assessment order passed beyond the timelines prescribed under section 153 of the Act was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed as not pressed. Regarding the inclusion of specific companies as comparables (Ksolves India Limited, Consilient Technologies Private Limited, Great Software Laboratory Pvt Ltd, IDS Infotech Limited, Systango Technologies Limited, Sagarsoft India Limited, and Data Collection Infotech (India) Private Limited), the Tribunal found them inappropriate when compared to the assessee's activities and turnover. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude these companies and recompute the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). On the issue of margin computation of comparable companies, the Tribunal noted that the DRP had directed computation based on annual reports. As the assessee submitted that margins were erroneously computed, the Tribunal directed the TPO to recompute the margins in accordance with law, considering the annual reports as directed by the DRP. Concerning working capital adjustment, the Tribunal found the assessee's case facts identical to those in the referred cases and directed the AO/TPO to grant the working capital adjustment for computing the margin. Ground No. 1 was general, and Grounds No. 13 & 15 were not pressed and hence not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A of the Act for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 was unsustainable. The primary reason was that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) was vague and did not specify the exact charge of 'underreporting' or 'misreporting' of income as contemplated under Section 270A. The Tribunal noted that Section 270A deals with two distinct types of defaults, and a general notice stating 'underreporting/misreporting' does not provide the assessee with sufficient clarity to frame a defense. Therefore, the SCN was considered bad in law, vitiating the penalty. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the penalty under Section 271AAB for AY 2020-21 in the provided excerpt, but the reasoning for Section 270A suggests a similar outcome if the SCN was indeed vague. The operative direction was to cancel the penalty under Section 270A.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notices issued for levying penalties were bad in law because they did not clearly specify the charges or faults against the assessees. This lack of specificity prejudiced the assessees' ability to defend themselves, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal observed that the correct jurisdiction for the appeal was Jaipur, as the AO's jurisdiction was in Kota, Rajasthan. Since the assessee had already filed and registered an appeal before the Jaipur Bench, the present appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.