Loading ITAT cases…
381 orders · Page 6 of 8
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's counsel's negligence. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity due to peculiar circumstances and in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity due to peculiar circumstances and lack of proper professional support from their counsel. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO incorrectly allowed only 100% of the certified capital expenditure instead of the 200% deductible under Section 35(2AB). The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of transfer pricing adjustments based on previous decisions and the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT did not provide sufficient time for the assessee to furnish required details, especially concerning the deduction under Section 10AA. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the PCIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B is not maintainable if the audit report is available before the completion of assessment. Since the audit report was available to the AO before passing the assessment order, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that certain transactions, including NEFT payments and online transactions, were not considered by the CIT(A) and should not be treated as the assessee's income. Therefore, a portion of the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide clear reasoning for rejecting the assessee's financial statements and that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee were general and did not justify the inordinate delay of 1,088 days. The Tribunal emphasized that liberal interpretation of limitation law should not frustrate statutory provisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee undertook to comply with future notices and furnish evidence.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of unawareness of proceedings due to counsel's alleged lack of support, decided to grant one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after calling for necessary details.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not properly respond to notices or provide evidence for the cash deposits. However, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case properly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, as the assessee's explanation for the delay remained uncontroverted. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order without considering the information furnished by the assessee. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without verifying the submitted information. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay as the reasons provided by the assessee in the affidavit remained uncontroverted. The appeal was directed to be admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea of unawareness and lack of proper professional support, granted one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after calling for necessary details.
The Tribunal condoned the 2-day delay in filing the appeal before it. It also condoned the delay before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's counsel's failure to represent the case. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee for natural justice and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if ex-parte, and cannot dismiss it solely for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed voluminous additional evidence before it, which was not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after admitting and verifying the additional evidence.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which had a direct nexus with the addition sustained under Section 68. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the evidence.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had deleted the AO's addition, but then made an enhancement based on fresh loans from M/s. Moorthy Textile. Considering the extensive materials filed before the Tribunal, the issue requires fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 02.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision. It also noted that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the gross sale consideration as income represented in the form of an asset.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a senior citizen without business income, was not liable for advance tax under Section 207(2) of the Act. Consequently, interest levied under Sections 234B and 234C was deleted. Interest under Section 234A was also deleted as the return was filed within the time prescribed in the notice, and Section 234D interest was consequential.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the protective addition. It noted that no substantive addition was made in the hands of any other person, and the Revenue did not challenge this specific finding. The Tribunal also agreed that protective additions are only tenable when there is genuine ambiguity about the assessable person.
The Tribunal held that the gross sale proceeds collected on behalf of principals in a commission agency business cannot be treated as the agent's turnover or income. Only the commission earned is income. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the bank deposits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's AR's request. The Tribunal agreed to treat the current appeal as withdrawn due to the filing defects.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed voluminous additional evidence before it, which was not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after admitting and verifying the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The FAA is obligated to decide the appeal on its merits, even if the assessee is absent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a conduit for making tax payments on behalf of clients. The debits in the bank account clearly indicated tax payments, substantiating the assessee's claim that the deposited amounts belonged to clients and not the assessee.
The CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, holding that the reasons provided were insufficient and that lack of computer knowledge is not a valid ground. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the inordinate delay.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO did not survive due to the NCLT's resolution plan extinguishing all claims prior to the effective date. Consequently, the grounds raised in the assessee's appeal on merits and the grounds in the revenue's appeal became academic.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for issuance beyond three years was obtained from the PCIT instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) as mandated by Section 151(ii). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the NCLT order approving the resolution plan, passed on 27.06.2019, had an overriding effect. The resolution plan stipulated that all claims pertaining to the period on or before the Effective Date (31.03.2020) would be irrevocably settled, discharged, and extinguished. Since the final assessment order for AY 2015-16 was passed on 18.02.2019, prior to the NCLT order, and it was submitted that no income tax dues were placed before the NCLT or included in the resolution plan, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that any demand arising from additions sustained by the CIT(A) could not be raised. Regarding the Revenue's contention on carry forward of losses, the Tribunal, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Amns Gandhidham Ltd. vs. ACIT, held that since the Revenue had not made any submissions before the NCLT, the carry forward of losses could not be denied. The Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the AO did not survive, rendering the grounds in both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals academic. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without affording the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing and without confronting it with all the grounds for rejection. The Tribunal found that the rejection violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without affording the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing and without confronting it with all the grounds for rejection. The Tribunal found that the rejection violated the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee may have missed the notices due to the pandemic and subsequent issuance. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the AO to frame the assessment denovo after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO should examine the reconciliation statement for the income difference on merits. For Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to re-compute the disallowance as per previous years' decisions.
The Tribunal held that the recorded business receipts could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 as the sales were supported by sales invoices, stock records, and VAT returns. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of additions for excess stock and unaccounted sales, considering them as negligible discrepancies within the business operations.
The Tribunal held that the AO should examine the reconciliation statement for the income difference on merits. For Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to re-compute the disallowance as per previous years' decisions.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetization, if explained as business receipts supported by VAT returns, cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. The estimation of profit on isolated cash deposits was also deemed arbitrary.
The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition in the hands of the other person was set aside to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the present matter was also restored to the Assessing Officer to pass an assessment order based on the outcome of the remand proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2020-21 had considered an identical issue and held that no Arms Length Price (ALP) adjustment could be carried out on the advertisement and marketing expenditure incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the facts in the current year were similar to the earlier year. The Tribunal further relied on the decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which held that the existence of an international transaction is a prerequisite for invoking Chapter X, and the burden is on the revenue to establish an agreement or understanding with the AE regarding AMP expenditure. Mere incurrence of higher AMP expenditure does not lead to such an inference, and TP provisions contemplate substitution of price, not quantitative adjustment based on excess expenditure. In the absence of a demonstrable transaction with an ascertainable price, no TP adjustment on AMP can be sustained. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the adjustment made towards AMP expenses. Regarding grounds 6 & 7, considering the decision on TP adjustment, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the set-off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation as claimed by the assessee in accordance with law, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that providing corporate guarantee to an associated enterprise is a separate international transaction and not a shareholder activity. The CIT(A) correctly upheld the TP adjustment by adopting 1% as the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for the corporate guarantee, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Redington India Ltd. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the corporate guarantee. Regarding the disallowance of bad debts, the judgment excerpt is incomplete, but the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this point. For the leased assets, the Tribunal analyzed the lease agreement and concluded that the lessor retained ownership. Therefore, the lease payments made by the assessee as lessee are to be treated as revenue expenditure and deductible. The assessee's methodology was accepted, and the alternative claims allowed by the AO were reversed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance for EMI on leased assets. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was recorded with an inordinate delay of 73 days without justification, violating the mandate of law. This delay renders the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C invalid.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was recorded with an inordinate delay of 73 days without justification, violating the mandate of law. This delay renders the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C invalid.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if it's ex-parte, and cannot dismiss it solely for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without properly considering the assessee's explanation for the delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that CCDs should be treated as debt instruments until conversion and that the AO erred in re-characterizing them as equity. Regarding trade receivables, the Tribunal allowed a 90-day credit period for computing interest, directing the AO to recompute the adjustment.
The Tribunal held that providing corporate guarantee to an associated enterprise is a separate international transaction and not a shareholder activity. It upheld the upward adjustment for corporate guarantee based on judicial precedent and the assessee's own practice of charging a 1% fee. The Tribunal also found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for bad debts and EMI on leased assets.