Loading ITAT cases…
268 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal adjudicated the issues by referring to a co-ordinate bench decision in the case of M/s. Acqueon Technologies Pvt Ltd vs DCIT. For the issue concerning the benchmarking of business and management consultancy services, the judgment does not explicitly state a finding on the specific grounds raised by the assessee (grounds 2.1 to 2.6). However, for the issue concerning the interest on outstanding receivables (grounds 3.1 to 3.2), the Tribunal followed the co-ordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the interest on outstanding receivables from the Associated Enterprises by using the average LIBOR as the basis for imputation. Consequently, grounds of appeal Nos. 3.1 to 3.2 raised by the Assessee were allowed. The operative direction is to recompute interest on outstanding receivables using average LIBOR. The judgment does not explicitly state whether the first set of grounds (2.1 to 2.6) were decided or left undecided, but the overall result indicates a partial allowance.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision on several issues, including the treatment of provisions for doubtful debts under Section 115JB and the carry forward of long-term capital loss of an amalgamating company. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as they became infructuous.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision on several issues, including the treatment of provisions for doubtful debts under Section 115JB and the carry forward of long-term capital loss of an amalgamating company. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as they became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the addition of income under Section 69A was not sustainable as the AO could not have invoked Section 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016. It also ruled that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable for the transactions in question.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay. The limitation period commences from the communication of the assessment order, not the date of the order itself, and the appellant claimed to have received the order later. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for de novo disposal.
The CIT(A) accepted that facilitation expenses, termed 'speed money', incurred for business expediency are allowable. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit on alleged bogus purchases and allow a portion of transportation expenses, while deleting other additions.
The Tribunal held that the addition of income under Section 69A was not sustainable as the AO could not have invoked Section 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016. It also ruled that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable for the transactions in question.
The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the present appeal. Consequently, the Second Appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid due to improper approval, making the subsequent assessment order void. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was not granted by the competent authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. It also noted that jurisdictional defects cannot be treated as mere technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment proceedings for AY 2016-17 was not granted by the competent authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order for that year was invalid.
The Tribunal decided on the issue concerning the disallowance of deduction under section 80G. The Tribunal noted that while CSR expenses may not qualify as business expenditure, no extraneous conditions can be imposed on the allowability of deduction under section 80G beyond those specified in the section itself. The judgment highlighted that section 80G already lists specific CSR contributions that do not qualify for deduction, such as those to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that section 80G prohibits all CSR contributions. The AO failed to provide any material to support extending the restriction under section 80G to all CSR expenses. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 8,19,673/- on account of the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80G. This ground was allowed. The judgment also noted that Ground No. 2 was general and no specific arguments were advanced, hence it was dismissed. Some transfer pricing grounds were considered consequential and would become academic if principal issues were decided in favour of the assessee. The judgment does not explicitly record the findings on all grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for business expediency, even if not recorded in regular books, should be allowed. The CIT(A)'s estimation of profit on disputed transportation and purchase expenses was upheld, and certain additions were deleted as they were subsumed in peak cash balances.
The Tribunal noted that the expenditure on salaries and wages was shown as Nil, while a significant amount was shown as 'bonus'. It held that it's not possible to incur bonus expenditure without incurring salaries and wages, and remanded the matter back to the AO to examine the claim.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid due to improper approval, making the subsequent assessment order void. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal as the issues involved had been resolved under a MAP resolution mechanism. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to medical reasons. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to participate in assessment and appeal proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit (NFAC), contrary to the e-assessment scheme notified by the CBDT. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found these notices invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in valuing the excess stock based on the simple average cost of purchases, as it was the first year of business. The AO's addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to fully explain the source of all cash deposits, taxing the entire amount would be excessive. The addition should be restricted to the peak unexplained credit. The Tribunal also noted that provisions of Section 68 might be debatable in the absence of proper books of account, but the unexplained peak balance is taxable.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme, 2022. Therefore, the notice and consequential proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A were issued by the jurisdictional AO, not the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme of 2022. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the revenue's SLP in a similar case was also noted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to medical reasons. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to participate in assessment and appeal proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a denovo assessment, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a denovo assessment, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the JAO after the e-assessment scheme notification were invalid as they were not issued in a faceless manner as mandated. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine the potential violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and provided the assessee with another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A), setting aside the previous order.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 and the order u/s 148A(d) were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme of 2022. Therefore, the notices and consequential orders are invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in valuing the excess stock based on the simple average cost of purchases, as it was the first year of business. The AO's addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148, after the notification of the e-assessment scheme, were invalid as they deviated from the mandatory faceless procedure. Consequently, the assessment orders based on these notices were vitiated.
The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It found that the delay of 259 days was not due to deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, but rather due to reasons beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the assessee had established sufficient cause. Subsequently, the Tribunal considered the legal ground regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings. It noted that the notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2022 was issued after the notification of the Faceless Scheme on 29.03.2022, which mandated that proceedings under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 be carried out through the Faceless Mechanism. The issuance of the notice by the JAO contrary to this statutory mandate was held to be in violation of the 'Rule of Law', rendering the notice invalid and unsustainable. Consequently, the assessment order dated 03.03.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 was also vitiated and quashed. The Tribunal, having allowed the appeal on the legal ground, did not deem it necessary to adjudicate upon the merits of the additions made by the AO. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued in reassessment proceedings contrary to the mandatory provisions of the faceless assessment scheme are invalid and vitiate the entire assessment.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148, after the notification of the e-assessment scheme, were invalid as they deviated from the mandatory faceless procedure. Consequently, the assessment orders based on these notices were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the loss suffered by the assessee from investment in companies should be considered as a capital loss, reversing the capital gains computation. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, while the appeals of the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal decided to reckon the loss suffered by the assessee from investment in companies as a capital loss, reversing the computation of capital gains. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee in adjudicating the grounds pertaining to AY 1999-2000 under similar circumstances, holding that the loss suffered by the assessee from investment in the companies was apparent. Consequently, the capital gains on the transaction were reversed/deleted by accepting the assessee's appeal for AY 2000-01. The Tribunal did not delve into the applicability of the theory of diversion of income by overriding title. The appeals for AY 2000-01 were allowed by reckoning the capital loss. The three appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 178 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control and not due to deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides. The assessee had satisfactorily established a "sufficient cause" for the delay. Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, which advocate for substantive justice over technicalities, the Tribunal found merit in condoning the delay. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 31.07.2022 for AY 2014-15 was barred by limitation, respectfully following the decisions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Godrej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT. The Tribunal noted that the period available for passing the order under Section 148A(d) was truncated and expired on 12.07.2022, making the notice issued on 31.07.2022 beyond the period of limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order dated 23.05.2023 was quashed as bad in law and void ab initio. All other grounds were left undecided as they became academic.
The Tribunal decided to reckon the loss suffered by the assessee from investment in companies as a capital loss, reversing the computation of capital gains. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee in adjudicating the grounds pertaining to AY 1999-2000 under similar circumstances, holding that the loss suffered by the assessee from investment in the companies was apparent. Consequently, the capital gains on the transaction were reversed/deleted by accepting the assessee's appeal for AY 2000-01. The Tribunal did not delve into the applicability of the theory of diversion of income by overriding title. The appeals for AY 2000-01 were allowed by reckoning the capital loss. The three appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the loss suffered by the assessee from investment in companies should be considered as a capital loss, reversing the capital gains computation. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, while the appeals of the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme. Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings are invalid.
The Tribunal held that the TPO was not justified in rejecting the aggregated TNMM approach. It found that the ALP of management services and testing & validation services cannot be determined at Nil, and therefore, the TP adjustments in respect of these services are deleted. Regarding the notional interest on outstanding receivables, the Tribunal noted that courts have held that receivables closely linked to the main transaction cannot be benchmarked separately. It also observed that once a working capital adjustment is granted under TNMM, no separate TP adjustment survives. Furthermore, it was undisputed that the assessee is a debt-free company, and decisions cited hold that notional interest cannot be imputed where the assessee has no borrowing cost. The alternative plea of netting off receivables with payables also favored the assessee. Consequently, the TP adjustment on notional interest on outstanding receivables is also deleted. The revenue's reliance on SAP Labs was deemed misplaced as it did not prohibit reliance on coordinate bench decisions on propositions of law.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A were invalid as they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit (NFAC), contrary to the e-assessment scheme notified on March 29, 2022. This violated Section 151A of the Act.
The Tribunal decided the issue concerning the inclusion of Omax Auto Limited as a comparable company. It noted that this issue had already been adjudicated in IT(TP)A No.53/Chny/2024 for Assessment Year 2020-21, where it was held that the Assessee and Omax Auto are engaged in the same line of manufacturing auto components. In that prior decision, the Tribunal directed the TPO to include Omax Auto in the final list of comparable companies and to rework the Arm's Length Price (ALP) accordingly. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to include Omax Auto Ltd. in the final list of comparable companies for the current assessment year and to recompute the ALP in accordance with its directions. The Tribunal also noted the Assessee's submission that if issues were decided in its favor, the remaining grounds would become academic. Accordingly, the Assessee's appeal was treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the detailed adjudication on all grounds listed in the 'issues' section is not provided in the excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A were invalid as they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), contrary to the e-assessment scheme notified on 29.03.2022.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, noting the assessee was an old trust entitled to 5-year registration. It directed the application to be treated as filed under the correct section due to system limitations and set aside the ex-parte order.
The Tribunal condoned the delays, noting the assessee was an old trust entitled to 5-year registration. It directed the application to be treated as filed under the correct section due to system limitations and set aside the ex-parte order.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO under Section 148, after the notification of the faceless scheme which mandated issuance by the Faceless Mechanism, was invalid and bad in law. This contravention of the Rule of Law vitiated the reopening of the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid and bad in law, contrary to the 'Rule of Law' and the mandatory provisions of the faceless scheme. Consequently, the reopening of assessment and the subsequent assessment order were also held to be null and void.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid and bad in law because it contravened the provisions of Section 151A of the Act and the mandatory Faceless Scheme notified on 29.03.2022. Consequently, the reopening of assessment and the assessment order were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO under Section 148, dated 31.03.2022, was invalid and bad in law. This was because the e-Assessment Scheme, notified on 29.03.2022, made it mandatory to issue such notices through the Faceless Mechanism. Consequently, the reopening of assessment and the subsequent assessment order were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid and bad in law as it contravened the provisions of the Act and the faceless scheme. Consequently, the reopening of assessment and the assessment order were also held to be illegal.