Loading ITAT cases…
316 orders · Page 1 of 7
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a Non-Resident in India for the relevant assessment years. The CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was employed with JCI (USA) and stayed in India for less than 182 days in each relevant year was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed/unabated at the time of search, additions could not be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a Non-Resident in India for the relevant assessment years. The CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was employed with JCI (USA) and stayed in India for less than 182 days in each relevant year was upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed/unabated at the time of search, additions could not be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed after due inquiry on the issues selected for scrutiny. The PCIT failed to provide independent material to establish that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The revisionary proceedings were initiated mechanically based solely on audit objections, without independent satisfaction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not engaged in the business of money lending, and the advances were to his own business concerns. It was found that there was a reasonable cause for not getting accounts audited, and the penalty levied under Section 271B was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal against the assessment order under Section 143(3) was still pending before the CIT(A) and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable in law. It was undisputed that the DRP had directed the exclusion of four comparable companies. Section 144C(13) of the Act mandates that the Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment in conformity with the DRP's directions. The Tribunal found that the AO, despite being aware of the DRP's directions, repeated the adjustment from the draft assessment order, thereby violating section 144C(13). This conduct rendered the final assessment order void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on the ratio from ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie and CIT v. Sanmina SCI India (P.) Ltd., which held that an assessment order not in conformity with DRP directions is void ab initio. The Tribunal also noted that the precedents relied upon by the assessee, such as Olympus Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Royal Canin India Pvt. Ltd., squarely covered the issue. The Revenue's reliance on PCIT v. S.G. Asia Holdings (India) Pvt. Ltd. was deemed misplaced as that case did not involve section 144C proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that section 292B was not applicable as the order was a nullity, not merely an irregularity. Consequently, the final assessment order was quashed, and the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.6,05,17,823/- was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a Non-Resident in India for the relevant assessment years. The CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was employed with JCI (USA) and stayed in India for less than 182 days in each relevant year was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a Non-Resident in India for the relevant assessment years. The CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was employed with JCI (USA) and stayed in India for less than 182 days in each relevant year was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the correct stamp duty value was Rs. 30,31,900/-, and the difference between this value and the purchase price was within the 5% tolerance limit. Therefore, no addition was warranted under section 56(2)(x) of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delays in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to file within the prescribed time. Regarding the ex-parte orders, the Tribunal acknowledged that both the A.O. and CIT(A) passed orders without the assessee furnishing requisite details and noted the assessee's negligence. However, upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate her case. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the A.O. for a denovo assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to comply with all notices and furnish relevant details. For ITA No. 2255/Chny/2025, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was held to be unsustainable as it was based on the assessment order that was set aside. The A.O. was granted liberty to initiate and levy penalty while passing the fresh assessment order. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte without proper participation of the assessee and without examining the merits. The assessee also raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the order u/s. 148A(d) as it pertained to another assessee.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the rival submissions and perusing the materials, found that the AO issued a show cause notice on 18.05.2023 with a compliance period of only four days. It also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-response and failure to furnish details. However, adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal was of the opinion that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the file of the AO for denovo assessment. The AO was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee was directed to comply with all notices and furnish relevant details. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that organizing medical seminars and conferences constitutes 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. It further ruled that the proviso to Section 2(15) was inapplicable as the activities fell under the independent head of education and not the residual limb of general public utility.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should decide the application on its merits, considering the amended provisions of Section 80G(5). The rejection solely on the ground of maintainability was set aside.
The Tribunal held that a recent amendment to Section 80G(5) by the Finance Act, 2024, allows applications to be filed at any time after commencement of activities. Therefore, the CIT(E) was directed to treat the assessee's application as filed under the amended provision.
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) failed to discharge the burden of proof in establishing that the donations were not voluntary. The FAA's findings were based on presumptions and lacked concrete evidence. The Tribunal found the donations to be voluntary and thus not chargeable to tax, directing the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal noted that Section 80G was amended by the Finance Act, 2024, inserting clause (iv) which allows applications anytime after commencement of activities, effective from 01.10.2024. Since the CIT(E)'s order was passed after the amendment came into force, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to decide the application on merit.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the basis of the penalty, was set aside by a coordinate bench for fresh assessment, the penalty levied thereon cannot survive.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the assessee's condonation petitions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the AO for denovo assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and affording the assessee an opportunity to present her case. The penalty orders for the related appeals were also rendered non-surviving.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delays in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to file within the prescribed time. Regarding the ex-parte orders, the Tribunal acknowledged that both the A.O. and CIT(A) passed orders without the assessee furnishing requisite details and noted the assessee's negligence. However, upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate her case. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the A.O. for a denovo assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to comply with all notices and furnish relevant details. For ITA No. 2255/Chny/2025, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was held to be unsustainable as it was based on the assessment order that was set aside. The A.O. was granted liberty to initiate and levy penalty while passing the fresh assessment order. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders of the AO and CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the AO for a de novo assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CPC denied TDS credit due to a mismatch between income offered and receipts in Form 26AS. The assessee explained that membership fees, though subject to TDS, were not offered to tax due to the principle of mutuality. The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) relied on Rule 37BA(3)(i), stating TDS credit cannot be allowed if the corresponding income is not included in the return. However, the Tribunal found that Rule 37BA(3)(i) pertains to granting TDS credit in the year the income is assessable, which was the current year. The income was not taxed solely due to mutuality, not because it belonged to another assessment year. Following the decision in K. Ventesan (HUF) v. ACIT, the Tribunal held that TDS credit cannot be denied merely because the income is exempt. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the credit of TDS after due verification. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application due to a clerical mistake in selecting the wrong clause was not justified. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the application under the correct clause and provide an opportunity to the assessee to present its case and submit supporting documents.
The tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the rival submissions and perusing the materials, found that the AO issued a show cause notice on 18.05.2023 with a compliance period of only four days. It also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-response and failure to furnish details. However, adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal was of the opinion that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the file of the AO for denovo assessment. The AO was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee was directed to comply with all notices and furnish relevant details. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the assessee's condonation petitions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the AO for denovo assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and affording the assessee an opportunity to present her case. The penalty orders for the related appeals were also rendered non-surviving.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application due to a clerical mistake in selecting the wrong clause was not justified. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the application under the correct clause and provide an opportunity to the assessee to present its case and submit supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied as the assessee provided confirmations from a significant number of depositors, and the remaining ones also denied making deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the penalty based on the AO's own remand report acknowledging the genuineness of the denials.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the assessee's condonation petitions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the AO for denovo assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and affording the assessee an opportunity to present her case. The penalty orders for the related appeals were also rendered non-surviving.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment, following Supreme Court and jurisdictional ITAT precedents regarding the valuation of captively consumed power. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance for commission paid to non-resident agents, as services were rendered outside India and the assessee had complied with procedural requirements.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment, following Supreme Court and jurisdictional ITAT precedents regarding the valuation of captively consumed power. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance for commission paid to non-resident agents, as services were rendered outside India and the assessee had complied with procedural requirements.
The Tribunal held that interest income received by a co-operative society from investments in another co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A), which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) relied on judgments like CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. without allowing the assessee to distinguish them in light of the present case's facts. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not provide a specific finding on the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, as relied upon by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to examine all legal issues afresh. The Tribunal clarified that its decision was not a finding on the merits of the case. All legal issues were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A), which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) relied on judgments like CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. without allowing the assessee to distinguish them in light of the present case's facts. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not provide a specific finding on the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, as relied upon by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to examine all legal issues afresh. The Tribunal clarified that its decision was not a finding on the merits of the case. All legal issues were kept open.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the explicit submission made by the assessee's authorized representative during the hearing on 29.10.2025, and the accompanying letter dated 23.10.2025, which clearly indicated the assessee's intention to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request and proceeded to dismiss the appeal accordingly. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A), which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) relied on judgments like CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. without allowing the assessee to distinguish them in light of the present case's facts. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not provide a specific finding on the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, as relied upon by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to examine all legal issues afresh. The Tribunal clarified that its decision was not a finding on the merits of the case. All legal issues were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The assessee's treatment of indirect costs as period costs, consistent with the ICAI guidance note, was found to be in order, especially as the project had not yet commenced and revenue recognition criteria were not met.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A), which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) relied on judgments like CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. without allowing the assessee to distinguish them in light of the present case's facts. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not provide a specific finding on the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, as relied upon by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to examine all legal issues afresh. The Tribunal clarified that its decision was not a finding on the merits of the case. All legal issues were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A), which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) relied on judgments like CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. without allowing the assessee to distinguish them in light of the present case's facts. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not provide a specific finding on the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, as relied upon by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to examine all legal issues afresh. The Tribunal clarified that its decision was not a finding on the merits of the case. All legal issues were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A), which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) relied on judgments like CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. without allowing the assessee to distinguish them in light of the present case's facts. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not provide a specific finding on the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, as relied upon by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to examine all legal issues afresh. The Tribunal clarified that its decision was not a finding on the merits of the case. All legal issues were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A), which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) relied on judgments like CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. without allowing the assessee to distinguish them in light of the present case's facts. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not provide a specific finding on the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, as relied upon by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to examine all legal issues afresh. The Tribunal clarified that its decision was not a finding on the merits of the case. All legal issues were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A), which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) relied on judgments like CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. without allowing the assessee to distinguish them in light of the present case's facts. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not provide a specific finding on the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, as relied upon by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to examine all legal issues afresh. The Tribunal clarified that its decision was not a finding on the merits of the case. All legal issues were kept open.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed additional evidence before the CIT(A), including transport declarations, registration certificates, trip details, and ledger accounts, which the CIT(A) rejected under Rule 46A without adequate justification. The Tribunal considered this additional evidence crucial for determining the applicability of Section 194C(6) and the consequential disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), as it pertained to the ownership and use of transport vehicles. In the interest of justice and to arrive at the correct tax liability, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to consider the additional evidence and any other evidence furnished by the assessee, pass a speaking order after affording an adequate opportunity, and all grounds are kept open for adjudication. The Tribunal made no opinion on the merits of the issue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A), which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) relied on judgments like CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. and DCIT vs. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. without allowing the assessee to distinguish them in light of the present case's facts. Furthermore, the CIT(A) did not provide a specific finding on the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, as relied upon by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to examine all legal issues afresh. The Tribunal clarified that its decision was not a finding on the merits of the case. All legal issues were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal were reasonable. The delay was condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues on merits after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal held that although the application was filed late under the original clause (iii), an amendment to the Act made the assessee eligible under the new clause (iv). The CIT(E) was directed to treat the application as filed under the amended provision and decide on merits.