Loading ITAT cases…
268 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal directed the AO to tax only the profit element (8%) on receipts from Karnataka Road Development Corporation Ltd. and confirmed the disallowance of expenses claimed against LIC receipts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the assessee's undertaking to cooperate, remanded the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This was subject to a cost of ₹.20,000/- to be paid to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The Tribunal held that grounds 2.1 and 2.2, relating to the combination of manufacturing segments and rejection of the 'Other Method', were not pressed by the assessee and were therefore dismissed. Regarding the selection of comparable companies for the manufacturing segment, the Tribunal found that the TPO had selected comparables diversified into various industries, not restricted to the automotive industry, and many were into cooling systems, whereas the assessee's majority manufacturing segment dealt with starters, alternators, and lighting. The Tribunal agreed that considering companies from the automobile sector would be more appropriate and that the decisions relied upon by the assessee supported this. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the TPO to undertake a fresh benchmarking analysis considering automobile sector companies. The Tribunal also held that the non-granting of economic adjustments was against transfer pricing principles and directed the TPO to quantify and grant economic adjustments. Thus, ground no. 2.4 was partly allowed. Concerning the TP adjustment for notional interest on overdue receivables, the Tribunal, following its decision in Temenos India Private Limited and other precedents, held that since the assessee is a debt-free company and does not incur significant interest cost, the adjustment is unwarranted. The Tribunal directed the TPO to delete the adjustment and recompute the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the Faceless Assessment Unit (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme notified by CBDT. Therefore, the notices and consequential orders are invalid.
The Tribunal held that additions made to the assessee company's income were not sustainable as the transactions were carried out by the Managing Director in his individual capacity. The Tribunal also noted that the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were not directly linked to the seized material.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable in the hands of the assessee company. The CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions, finding that the transactions were carried out by S.T. Nedunselian and not the assessee company, and that the cash deposits were not based on seized material.
The Tribunal held that the relevant date for determining brought-forward loss under Section 115JB for AY 2005-06 is April 1, 2004 (losses as on March 31, 2004), not March 31, 2005, as taken by the AO. The reduction of share capital should not be adjusted out of losses as on March 31, 2005.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO based on a 'dumb document' was not sustainable. Since the basis for the addition was deleted, the consequential penalty under Section 271DA could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that interest under section 234A cannot be levied when the entire tax liability has been discharged before the due date or before the actual filing of the return. The court cited CBDT Circular No. 2/2015 and the Supreme Court judgment in Prannoy Roy.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's reason for not responding to notices could be considered a sufficient cause. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appellant society is not an educational institution and is not substantially financed by the government, thus not satisfying the conditions for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiab). However, one ground of appeal was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the nature and source of cash deposits by providing verifiable documents showing a correlation between stamp paper sales and bank deposits, thus directing the deletion of the addition under Section 69A. Regarding the housing loan interest, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the claim properly and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh examination.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the initial admission was based on incomplete books and the revised accounts correctly allocated the income. The ad-hoc disallowance was also deleted as the AO did not reject the books or agreements.
The Tribunal held that the year-end provisions, other than ad-hoc provisions, are allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal noted that these provisions relate to the expense of the subject assessment year, but invoices may not have been received or payment initiated. Such provisions are created and reversed in the succeeding financial year, reflecting the true and correct financial picture as per Accounting Standards. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT and MPS Ltd. (ITA No.:761/CHNY/2017) where similar year-end provisions, when reversed in the succeeding year, were held to be allowable. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recompute the assessed income and interest under section 234B of the Act in view of the decisions on the issues. The specific issue regarding the transfer pricing adjustment for GAM charges was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt of the judgment, but the overall outcome indicates a partial allowance of the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the 133-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It noted that the assessee had consistently attempted to invest by writing to the bank and kept funds reserved, and the non-availability of bonds was beyond her control. Relying on judicial pronouncements and a similar favorable decision for the co-owner, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the Section 54EC exemption.
The tribunal held that additions based solely on a statement recorded during a search, without corroborative evidence, are unsustainable. It also found that ad-hoc disallowances without reasons and the invocation of Section 40A(3) for capital transactions were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the date of handing over seized materials to the assessee's Assessing Officer is considered the date of initiation of search for the purpose of Section 153C. Since this date was after April 1, 2021, Section 153C would not apply.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a retracted statement without corroborative incriminating material. The presumption under Section 132(4A) and 292C is rebuttable and not conclusive.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a retracted statement without corroborative incriminating material. The presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C is rebuttable and requires supporting evidence, which was lacking in this case.
The Tribunal held that the date of handing over seized materials to the assessee's Assessing Officer is considered the date of initiation of search for the purpose of Section 153C. Since this date was after April 1, 2021, Section 153C would not apply.
The Tribunal held that the date of handing over seized materials to the assessee's Assessing Officer is considered the date of initiation of search for the purpose of Section 153C(3). Since this date was after April 1, 2021, the notices issued under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's submission of a reasonable cause. While acknowledging the assessee's negligence, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication, providing one last opportunity.
The Tribunal found the delay in filing Form 10AB to be condonable, citing genuine difficulty and the smallness of the delay. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to consider the application afresh on its merits, providing the assessee with a fair opportunity, and without being influenced by the previous findings.
The Tribunal condoned the 133-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It noted that the assessee had consistently attempted to invest by writing to the bank and kept funds reserved, and the non-availability of bonds was beyond her control. Relying on judicial pronouncements and a similar favorable decision for the co-owner, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the Section 54EC exemption.
The Tribunal found the FAA's order cryptic and noted that not all evidence was considered. Despite the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication, as the original assessment was ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that an addition based on industry averages without rejecting the books of account is unsustainable. The tribunal found the profit before partner remuneration to be consistent with previous years and directed a modest upward adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based solely on circumstantial evidence from a third-party ledger and an uncorroborated statement, without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine or access the material. This violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's submission of a reasonable cause. While acknowledging the assessee's negligence, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication, providing one last opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the date of handing over seized materials to the assessee's Assessing Officer is considered the date of initiation of search for the purpose of Section 153C. Since this date was after April 1, 2021, Section 153C would not apply.
The Tribunal condoned a 155-day delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it found the 8% estimation to be ad hoc and excessive, noting the assessee's consistent past low profit margins (3-3.7%) and the nature of its business. The Tribunal directed the income to be computed at 5% of the contract receipts and deleted the separate addition for cash deposits, deeming it impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay convincing and sufficient, directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits for AY 2017-18. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal set aside and remanded the appeal to the AO for fresh assessment in light of a quantum order.
The tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay convincing and sufficient, directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits for AY 2017-18. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal set aside and remanded the appeal to the AO for fresh assessment in light of a quantum order.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was not issued in a faceless manner as mandated by the CBDT's e-assessment scheme. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's profit estimation was without basis. Following coordinate bench orders in similar cases of the assessee's parents, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict profit estimation to 4%. The issue regarding Section 115BBE was deemed academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessee company became a subsidiary of a public limited company, making it a deemed public company under Section 2(18) of the Act. Consequently, Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax 50% of the agricultural income due to lack of substantiating documents. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was incriminating material found during the search, giving the AO jurisdiction for assessment.
The tribunal held that the show cause notice was defective and invalid as it failed to clearly specify the precise charge, thereby denying the assessee the opportunity to properly defend. Relying on various High Court precedents, the tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty. The Supreme Court's decision in Gangotri Textiles Ltd. was distinguished based on its unique facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid as no search was initiated against the assessee and no incriminating material specific to the assessee was found or seized. Additions under Section 153A cannot be made based solely on material found from a third party or statements, especially for an unabated assessment year. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 25,78,98,000/- made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not conducted any independent valuation exercise, relying solely on unverified public domain data. It was observed that the seized materials, on a standalone basis, did not establish that the notations pertained to the assessee or that any payments were made by him. In the absence of cogent material linking the documents to the assessee or substantiating the alleged 'on-money' payment, the AO's reliance on such notations was considered misplaced. The Tribunal found that the factual matrix of the assessee's case was akin to the precedent set in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC), where the burden of proving actual consideration lies with the Revenue, and the Revenue had failed to discharge this burden. The Tribunal affirmed the findings of the lower appellate authorities, stating that the addition was made on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld, and the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax 50% of the agricultural income due to lack of substantiating documents. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was incriminating material found during the search, giving the AO jurisdiction for assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the difference was purely a disclosure variation in the ITR schedules and did not reflect any suppression or inflation of income, nor was there any adverse finding in the audit report.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax 50% of the agricultural income due to lack of substantiating documents. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was incriminating material found during the search, giving the AO jurisdiction for assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax 50% of the agricultural income due to lack of substantiating documents. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was incriminating material found during the search, giving the AO jurisdiction for assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax 50% of the declared agricultural income due to lack of substantiating documents. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s approach of taxing peak credit of cash deposits found in employee accounts.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits was not justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors. The reasoning was that the assessee had furnished bank statements and confirmations from the creditors, which demonstrated the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not brought on record any material to disprove the assessee's contentions. Therefore, the ratio of the decision is that if an assessee discharges the initial onus by providing evidence of identity and creditworthiness of the creditors, and the Revenue fails to bring any contrary material, the addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal found that the original assessment order did not adequately examine the applicability of Section 40A(3) and acknowledged discrepancies in the cash book. The Tribunal held that the PCIT had material to form prima facie satisfaction that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial, thus empowering the invocation of Section 263.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax 50% of the agricultural income due to lack of substantiating documents. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was incriminating material found during the search, giving the AO jurisdiction for assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax 50% of the agricultural income due to lack of substantiating documents. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was incriminating material found during the search, giving the AO jurisdiction for assessment.