Loading ITAT cases…
339 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It upheld the deletion of certain additions based on telescoping benefits and the nature of agricultural income, while confirming other additions to the extent of incremental balances.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It upheld the deletion of certain additions based on telescoping benefits and the nature of agricultural income, while confirming other additions to the extent of incremental balances.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It upheld the deletion of certain additions based on telescoping benefits and the nature of agricultural income, while confirming other additions to the extent of incremental balances.
The Tribunal observed that it was unclear whether the assessee consistently followed the cash system of accounting. The issue of accrual of income depended on the terms of the agreement with the borrower, which were not examined by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification of factual aspects.
The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment order due to the absence of a notice u/s. 143(2), holding it to be bad in law. However, the CIT(A) also made additions, which were then deleted by the ITAT as the CIT(A) should not have entered into merits after quashing the order.
The Tribunal held that the legal grounds raised by the assessee regarding jurisdiction under Section 153A were dismissed as the assessment years involved were abated. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal allowed the benefit of unutilized telescoping to delete the additions related to unsecured creditors and agricultural income for the relevant assessment years.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It upheld the deletion of certain additions based on telescoping benefits and the nature of agricultural income, while confirming other additions to the extent of incremental balances.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,92,55,497/- was already subsumed within the admitted and assessed amount of Rs. 11,43,88,900/-. Therefore, making a separate addition would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not blindly accept the CUP method, applying it only where documentation was adequate and using TNMM with the TPO's comparables for the rest. The capacity utilization adjustment was considered valid as it reflected actual differences and was supported by judicial precedents. The Tribunal found no violation of Rule 46A.
The Tribunal found that the quarry expenses were indeed incurred for procuring raw materials for the assessee's business. However, a partial disallowance of 30% of these expenses was upheld by the CIT(A) due to unverifiable details.
The Tribunal held that merely accepting SBNs in violation of notifications does not automatically make the source unexplained. If the deposits are explained by business sales and are recorded in the books, the addition under Section 69A is not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the cash receipts were advances taxable upon project completion. It also noted that the assessee had already offered the income in the year of completion and that Section 43CB read with ICDS-III was not applicable to real estate developers.
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 National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme notified by the CBDT. Therefore, the proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the cash receipts were advances taxable upon project completion. It also noted that the assessee had already offered the income in the year of completion and that Section 43CB read with ICDS-III was not applicable to real estate developers.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The assessee's appeal regarding unexplained cash deposits was allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue set aside for de novo examination by the AO.
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not maintainable due to the low tax effect. The assessee's appeal regarding unexplained cash deposits was allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue set aside for de novo examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made the investment in construction of a new residential property before the expiry of the three-year period and was therefore eligible for the deduction under Section 54. The AO's action of taxing the capital gain in the impugned year was deemed erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a valid registration for the Assessment Year 2020-21. Regarding the disallowances, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing an opportunity to be heard after receiving the remand report, which violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter of disallowances was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the cash receipts were advances taxable upon project completion. It also noted that the assessee had already offered the income in the year of completion and that Section 43CB read with ICDS-III was not applicable to real estate developers.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the cash receipts were advances taxable upon project completion. The assessee followed the project completion method, which was permissible under ICDS transitional provisions and accepted by the AO in subsequent years, preventing double taxation.
The Tribunal found that the quarry expenses were indeed incurred for procuring raw materials for the assessee's business. However, a partial disallowance of 30% of these expenses was upheld by the CIT(A) due to unverifiable details.
The Tribunal found that the quarry expenses were indeed incurred for procuring raw materials for the assessee's business. However, a partial disallowance of 30% of these expenses was upheld by the CIT(A) due to unverifiable details.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), contrary to the e-assessment scheme. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without a valid 'reason to believe' as the Assessing Officer merely reproduced information from the Investigation Wing without independent analysis or tangible material. Furthermore, the addition under section 69A was held to be unjustified as the losses incurred were from genuine trading transactions recorded in the books of account on a recognized exchange, not unexplained money.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make a disallowance under Section 40A(3) without establishing that payments were made in violation of the provisions or that ledger entries were artificially split. Since it was admitted that no payment exceeded Rs. 10,000/- per person per day as per ledger copies, the disallowance was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the market value of electricity for captive consumption should be based on the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplies power to consumers, not the rate at which the generating unit sells to third parties. It also clarified that employer's contribution to gratuity and superannuation is deductible if paid by the due date of filing the return of income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of substantiating the source of cash deposit in SBN by providing affidavits from agents and correlating cash sales and debtor collections. The Tribunal also noted that the addition was nominal compared to the overall turnover. Therefore, the A.O.'s action to make an addition under Section 68 was not sustained.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee inadvertently declared a lesser cash balance in the return of income, believing it was already accounted for. While the assessee submitted documentary evidence before the CIT(A), it was not formally submitted under Rule 46A. Considering the peculiar facts and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) provided multiple opportunities for hearing, but the assessee did not appear. The assessee's representative argued that due to COVID-19 impacts and technical issues, they were not aware of the notices. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of internal TNMM by the TPO/DRP was unsustainable in law. It noted that the TPO had neither rejected the segmental accounts nor pointed out specific defects therein, and had implicitly accepted functional similarity by aggregating AE and non-AE margins. The Tribunal followed its own precedents, holding that internal TNMM deserves primacy when reliable segmental data is available. Since the segmental results showed higher margins from AE transactions, the international transactions were considered at arm's length. Regarding the COVID-19 impact, the Tribunal observed that the loss incurred in AY 2021-22 was due to extraordinary external factors like revenue decline, under-absorption of fixed overheads, and COVID-19 related costs, while gross profit margins remained consistent. Therefore, the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.9,06,00,000/- was directed to be deleted. For grounds 4-7 concerning disallowance of miscellaneous expenses, repair and maintenance expenses, rent expenses, and bad debts written off, the Tribunal found that the AO's disallowances were often ad hoc or made without proper verification and reasoned assessment. Consequently, these issues were set aside and restored to the file of the AO for fresh examination and decision in accordance with law, after providing the assessee with due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disregarding the assessee's books of account without statutory rejection under Section 145(3). It also found that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by withdrawals and money lending business activities, and that taxing gross deposits led to inflated additions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. Costs were imposed on the assessee for each appeal.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disregarding the assessee's books of account without statutory rejection under Section 145(3). It also found that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by withdrawals and money lending business activities, and that taxing gross deposits led to inflated additions.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit (NFAC), which was contrary to the mandatory e-assessment scheme notified on 29.03.2022. Therefore, the notice and subsequent assessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging a reasonable cause for the delay. It was held that the assessee's non-participation was due to genuine reasons of not being aware of the notices, and therefore, the CIT(E)'s rejection was not justified.
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 National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme notified on March 29, 2022. Therefore, the notices and consequential proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating the reasons were beyond the assessee's control. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective hearing or proper opportunity to present their case before the AO, and the impugned order was virtually ex-parte.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits, even after opportunities were given by the lower authorities. However, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the idle capacity adjustment. It noted that under TNMM, comparability must account for differences in functions, assets, and risks, and idle capacity, especially in ramp-up years, can distort net margins. The assessee provided evidence of capacity/operational ramp-up and subsequent improvement in cost absorption, with a transparent methodology. The Revenue failed to demonstrate the methodology's unreasonableness or identify superior comparables. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to grant this adjustment in the EPC segment as per the assessee's validated methodology. Regarding working capital adjustment, the Tribunal held that it must reflect the tested party's actual operating cycle, including all relevant operating current assets and liabilities not connected with core business, consistent with accepted practice. Items like unbilled revenue and prepaid expenses impact liquidity and should be included. The Tribunal directed a recomputation of the working capital adjustment, including all relevant operating current assets and liabilities as claimed by the assessee, subject to verification by the AO/TPO.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which included bank statements, Form 16, and ITR-Vs of the two directors/shareholders. The Tribunal found that this evidence suggested the directors had adequate funds for the investment. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for factual examination and to allow the claim if substantiated by the new evidence.
The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delay in filing the audit report, including NCLT proceedings and the death of a partner. It was noted that the audit report was filed before the assessment order was completed and that there was no loss to the exchequer. The Tribunal found 'reasonable cause' for the delay.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Ramesh M. Mehta v. ACIT, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld.CIT(A) to pass an appropriate order in the name of the legal heir of the deceased assessee.
The CIT(A) held that the amount of Rs. 6,81,04,103/- represented a long-term capital loss and not an inadmissible expenditure. The Tribunal agreed that the nature of the transaction determines the character of the loss, not its initial presentation in the books. However, the Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had incorrectly referred to it as admissible business expenditure.
For the unexplained cash deposit, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to explain the source and provide supporting documents, allowing the issue for statistical purposes. For the turnover difference, the Tribunal also provided the assessee with another opportunity to demonstrate if the amount was offered to tax in an earlier year to avoid double taxation, allowing this issue for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the FAA dismissed the appeal without considering additional evidence because the assessee failed to file a petition for admission under Rule 46A. Despite deprecating the assessee's non-response to notices, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO in the interest of justice and fair play.
The Tribunal held that the defect in Form 56F was curable and that the assessee had substantially complied with the requirements. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2021-22, the aggregate annual receipts of each educational institution should be considered individually for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad), not the total receipts of all institutions run by the trust. The amendment increasing the limit to Rs. 5 crore is prospective from AY 2022-23.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 263 was void ab initio because it was addressed to a company that had already amalgamated and ceased to exist. Therefore, the revision proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was invalid due to the timing of its issuance after the stipulated date. Furthermore, the addition made by the AO was not supported by corroborative evidence, relying solely on third-party statements.