Loading ITAT cases…
169 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for delay to be genuine, considering the circumstances of remote location and lack of digital literacy. The Tribunal condoned the delay on the condition of a ₹20,000 payment to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacked the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, as this power vested with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as per relevant notifications. Citing High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the notice issued by the JAO to be ultra vires.
The Tribunal held that the tax consultant's out-of-station status due to professional assignments constituted a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay.
The Tribunal noted the ex-parte order of the First Appellate Authority and the AO's best judgment assessment. Considering the assessee's claim of ignorance regarding e-proceedings and the need for fair play, the Tribunal decided to set aside the FAA's order.
The CIT(A) held that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were without jurisdiction and thus null and void, relying on various High Court decisions. The Tribunal noted a proposed amendment to the Finance Bill and a Supreme Court order restoring matters to High Courts. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's unfamiliarity with e-appeal procedures and deprecated the non-compliance. However, in the interest of justice, the case was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee attributed the investment source to gifts from his mother and sister but failed to furnish evidence to lower authorities due to lack of representation. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination, directing the assessee to produce all necessary evidences to substantiate the claim.
The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of income at 8% was not justified. Considering the assessee's business and declared commission income of 1.5%, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the overall estimation of income to 4%.
The Tribunal held that the comparable company 'Bizsense Solutions Pvt Ltd' was functionally dissimilar to the assessee, as Bizsense was engaged in software design and development while the assessee provided routine ITeS services. Therefore, Bizsense should be excluded from the list of comparables for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
The Tribunal held that if the tax audit report is made available to the AO before the completion of the assessment proceedings, a venial technical breach without mala fide intention does not warrant the levy of penalty under Section 271B of the Act. The delay in filing was also condoned.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order was from Kolkata, and therefore, the appeals should have been filed before the Kolkata benches. Following a Supreme Court judgment, the appeals were disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in bringing the declared income to tax for AY 2017-18 due to non-compliance with the scheme's payment terms. However, the higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE was not applicable as it is not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay of 164 days. It was observed that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but the explanation provided by the assessee regarding their unawareness of the assessment order was not found to be false. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that notices were not properly served upon the appellant as they were issued through the ITBA Portal, which is not a valid method of service. Relying on a High Court judgment, the Tribunal found the service invalid and the assessment proceedings flawed.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search relating to the assessment year, no addition could be made under Section 153A for an unabated assessment. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court has set aside and remitted back matters to the AO to pass a draft assessment order. Following this precedent, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the AO to pass a draft assessment order, providing the assessee an opportunity to contend the issue.
The Tribunal held that the conditions necessary for invoking Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were not satisfied. Since the AO accepted the returned income without any additions or disallowances, the question of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars did not arise. The delay in filing the return alone was not a sufficient basis for levying penalty.
The Tribunal held that the difference between interest paid on borrowed funds and interest charged on advances to related parties is disallowable. Advances to directors and key managerial personnel without commercial expediency are also subject to disallowance.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order was from Kolkata, and therefore, the appeals should have been filed before the Kolkata benches. Following a Supreme Court judgment, the appeals were disposed of as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the difference between interest paid on borrowed funds and interest charged on advances to related parties is disallowable. Advances to directors and key managerial personnel without commercial expediency are also subject to disallowance.
The Tribunal decided both issues in favour of the assessee. Regarding the performance guarantee/product warranty fee, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not charged any fee, and the TPO proposed an adjustment at 2.55%, which the DRP reduced to 1%. The assessee argued that the computation by the AO was factually incorrect as it was applied to Rs. 77.82 crores instead of Rs. 75.31 crores. On merits, the assessee contended that these were product warranties intrinsic to the software licensing and maintenance, already compensated through royalty. The Tribunal found that the assessee's royalty of 30% of AE's sales and AMC revenue already included consideration for product warranty. Since the principal transaction was accepted at arm's length, no separate remuneration should be attributed. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not charge separate fees for similar clauses with domestic customers and had paid damages without adjustment, indicating performance risk lay with the assessee. The Tribunal held that the imputation of a performance guarantee fee was unjustified. For interest on overdue receivables, the Tribunal found that the assessee had already received a working capital adjustment during the TNMM benchmarking, considering actual average working capital days. The assessee's margin remained substantially higher than the adjusted median of comparables even after this adjustment, indicating the impact of delayed receivables was factored in. Citing Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that a separate imputation of interest would amount to duplication. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the absence of a pattern of accommodation, the distinction between trade receivables and loans, and the explanation of COVID-related disruptions for the delay. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee did not charge interest on delayed receivables from non-AEs, thus no differential treatment was given. Consequently, the adjustment of Rs. 4,43,073 on account of interest on overdue receivables was deleted. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the assessee had infused unaccounted money and incorrectly rejected the DCF method without cogent material. The addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(viib) was directed to be deleted.
The Id. DR did not oppose the submissions of the Id. AR. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed written submissions along with an acknowledgement on 19.07.2025, which were not considered by the CIT(A) in the impugned order. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that these submissions were overlooked.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with notices issued through the ITBA portal. The assessee claimed these notices were not received. Considering the COVID-19 pandemic context and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of the appeal on merits, even if it is an ex-parte appeal. Dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits violates the principles of natural justice and settled legal position.
The Tribunal held that the new dairy plant was a distinct and bigger industrial undertaking, not a reconstruction of the old milk chilling center. The existing unit was merely an ancillary part of the new plant's operations. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 80IB.
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) wrongly dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, despite the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The FAA has jurisdiction to decide appeals on merits even in the absence of the assessee, as supported by judicial precedent. Therefore, the FAA's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable and directed its deletion. The reasoning was that the foundation for the penalty, which was the disallowance of exemption under Section 54, no longer survived to a substantial extent. In the quantum appeal (ITA No.1483/Chny/2025), this Tribunal had allowed the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54 to the extent of Rs.6,01,33,095/-, sustaining a disallowance only to the limited extent of Rs.14,99,190/-. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed the entire transaction and claimed exemption based on payments made to the builder. The issue was primarily one of quantification of eligible investment for Section 54, which was largely accepted by the Tribunal after examining supporting evidence. The remaining disallowance of Rs.14,99,190/- could not be construed as concealment of particulars, as the assessee had filed relevant details. The disallowance arose from a difference in appreciation of evidence and interpretation of Section 54, not from concealment. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. For AY 2013-14, the AO must verify daily cash payments under Section 40A(3). For AY 2008-09, the AO must verify evidence for expenditure and provide an opportunity for cross-examination if relying on third-party statements.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. For AY 2013-14, the AO must verify daily cash payments under Section 40A(3). For AY 2008-09, the AO must verify evidence for expenditure and provide an opportunity for cross-examination if relying on third-party statements.
The Tribunal held that the bifurcation of house property income for a jointly held property is amenable to rectification. However, other issues raised in the rectification petition were beyond its scope.
The Tribunal held that the bifurcation of house property income for a jointly held property is amenable to rectification. However, other issues raised in the rectification petition were beyond its scope.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the co-operative society from deposits made with another co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court's decision in CIT vs. Salem Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on ATMs and UPS at 40% is squarely covered in favor of the assessee, following its own previous decisions. Regarding the deduction under section 36(1)(viia), the issue was also found to be in favor of the assessee, and it was remitted to the Assessing Officer for quantification.
The Tribunal held that while a best judgment assessment is justified in the absence of books of account, the estimation must be reasonable. Given the nature of the garment business and the absence of substantiation, the Tribunal found the 8% estimation too high and the assessee's plea for 2% too low.
The Tribunal examined various additions made to the assessee's income, including those related to house property, deemed dividends, and foreign travel expenses. The tribunal considered the special audit report and the assessee's submissions in its decision.
The Tribunal held that the bifurcation of house property income for a jointly held property is amenable to rectification. However, other issues raised in the rectification petition were beyond its scope.
The Tribunal held that the bifurcation of house property income for a jointly held property is amenable to rectification. However, other issues raised in the rectification petition were beyond its scope.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court had quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, holding that the reopening was based on a change of opinion. Since the reassessment proceedings themselves were quashed, the additions made therein could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details of the source and nature of share capital and premium received from Shri Anil Jain. The allegation of the assessee using its own funds for layering was not supported by evidence. The Tribunal also noted that Shri Anil Jain had explained the source of his funds from share sale.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-13 was not valid. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 153A is applicable for assessment in search cases. However, for assessment years that have already concluded prior to the financial year in which the search is conducted, the AO can only make additions if there is any incriminating material found during the search that relates to those concluded assessment years. In this case, the search was conducted on October 4, 2017, which falls in the financial year 2017-18, and the assessment year 2012-13 had concluded long before. The Tribunal found that no specific incriminating material pertaining to AY 2012-13 was brought on record by the revenue to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A for this particular year. Therefore, the assessment order passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for AY 2012-13 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's educational activities were systematic and qualified as charitable. It also found that charging nominal fees for upkeep does not negate the charitable nature of education, and the trust's surplus is reinvested. The Tribunal noted that while 'relief of the poor' and 'medical relief' activities were yet to commence, the primary object of education was being pursued.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A of the Act applies only when the asset or money is not recorded in the books of account. In this case, the advances were recorded in the assessee's books of account and offered for tax. Since the books of account were not rejected, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was deemed untenable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Vedic/Sanskrit courses, conducted with regular classes, a fixed curriculum, attendance criteria, and examinations, amount to 'education' as contemplated under Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal found that charging nominal fees for the upkeep of the educational institute does not alter its charitable character, as eleemosynary is not always a prerequisite for a charitable purpose, and any surplus is reinvested. The Tribunal also held that the non-commencement of certain objects, such as 'relief of the poor' and 'medical relief', is not fatal at the registration stage, especially for a newly established trust. The Tribunal distinguished the reliance on Kasyapa Veda Research Foundation v CIT by noting that the universal appeal of Vedas and their philosophical aspects are not confined to any single religion, and that the assessee also undertook purely charitable activities like relief of the poor and financial assistance for Indian Heritage Education. The Tribunal quashed the CIT(E)'s findings and directed the grant of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders concerning various assessment years. The judgment details the proceedings leading up to the assessment order and the specific additions made, including those related to deemed dividends and foreign travel expenses.
The Tribunal held that the bifurcation of house property income for a jointly held property is amenable to rectification. However, other issues raised in the rectification petition were beyond its scope.
The Tribunal noted that the additions were primarily due to a lack of supporting evidence. The assessee has now provided additional evidence for all three additions. The Tribunal found this evidence material and relevant to the issues.
The Tribunal noted that while the FAA's order was ex-parte due to the assessee's lack of response, the AO had allowed a similar agricultural income claim in the preceding year with only a minor ad-hoc disallowance. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the FAA for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed under Section 154 without issuing a notice to the assessee, as required by Section 154(3) of the Act when the rectification enhances the assessment or increases liability, violates the principles of natural justice and is therefore invalid.