Loading ITAT cases…
429 orders · Page 7 of 9
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with an opportunity to further substantiate the delay, thus violating principles of natural justice. The matter was therefore set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's age and health. It held that the issue regarding addition under section 56(2)(x)(b) also requires fresh examination by the AO, including a reference to the DVO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the notices went to their spam folder due to system glitches, and thus did not receive a proper opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the applications for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a statutorily audited co-operative society. The assessee provided a reconciliation statement for the cash deposits. However, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the AO's addition, finding the cash deposits unreconciled and unsubstantiated with supporting proofs.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of corporate charges was erroneous. It found that the services provided did not make available technical knowledge or skills to the assessee, and thus did not qualify as FTS under the DTAA. The Tribunal also noted that the Singapore entity did not have a PE in India.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding no deliberate omission by the assessee. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order for violating natural justice and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo assessment.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and violated principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after admitting the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Babuji Jacob, the Tribunal found the notice to be bad in law.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the disallowance of Section 80P deduction, as the assessee failed to prove timely filing of the return. However, for the addition of unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to provide an opportunity to the assessee to produce its books of account.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented sales consideration for the main dealer and not the assessee's income, except for the commission earned. The addition on account of cash deposits was directed to be deleted, while the addition on account of commission was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in taxing the seized cash in AY 2019-20 because the seizure date of April 14, 2019, falls within AY 2020-21. Therefore, the assessment for AY 2019-20 was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present its case, with a warning against seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was substantially influenced by an inadvertent error in the application form and incomplete appreciation of the assessee's activities. The assessee deserves an opportunity to present the correct factual position.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were made to show creditworthiness and not as a loan or advance, thus Section 269SS was not attracted. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271D was deleted.
The Tribunal found no evidence that the assessee had withdrawn its application. Therefore, the rejection based on withdrawal was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot act contrary to the specific directions of the revisional authority (PCIT). It further held that interest earned from a co-operative bank, being a co-operative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. However, due to the assessee's non-participation in assessment and appellate proceedings, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal also set aside the penalty order, finding it suffered from inadequate consideration of the assessee's contentions, and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that even if the delay in filing the appeal before it were condoned, the appeal would not achieve any effective purpose. This is because the assessee had not approached the competent authority under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing the return.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the CPC under Section 43B, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the amendment in the Finance Act, 2021 was declaratory and retrospective. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the issue was debatable and not subject to adjustment under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was given liberty to file supporting evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the assessee to rectify the mistake in their application for registration. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present its case, with a warning against seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present its case, with a warning against seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the penalty for the first notice (09.08.2024) was to be deleted as there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to a subsequent appearance and request for adjournment. However, the penalty for the second notice (07.10.2024) was upheld due to lack of satisfactory explanation for continued non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that appeals should be heard by the ITAT Bench within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer is situated, as per the Supreme Court judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. ABC Papers Ltd. The assessee was granted permission to withdraw the appeal.
The tribunal condoned the delay, imposing a cost on the assessee. It held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a) for delayed remittance of employees' PF/ESI contributions was unsustainable as the issue was debatable at the time of intimation, and the jurisdictional High Court's decision favored the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue of jurisdiction for issuing the notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was central. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in ITO vs. Tej Partap Singh, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the matters for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present its case, with a warning against seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits, primarily due to non-prosecution. Considering the nature of the addition and the documentary evidence now presented, the matter deserves reconsideration by the first appellate authority.
The Tribunal held that the first proviso to Section 50C was applicable as an agreement and part payment were made before the GLV revision. Therefore, Section 50C would not apply if the sale price was higher than the GLV on the date of the agreement.
The Tribunal held that the provisos to Section 50C are applicable even if the agreement to sell is unregistered, provided the consideration was fixed and received through banking channels before registration. The stamp duty value on the agreement date should be considered.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which included sales invoices and other business documents. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh verification of these documents and the genuineness of the cash withdrawals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one final opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on delay without condoning it. It emphasized a liberal approach to condonation when substantial justice is at stake and the assessee provides a plausible explanation for the delay.
The Tribunal held that the first proviso to Section 50C was applicable as an agreement and part payment were made before the GLV revision. Therefore, Section 50C would not apply if the sale price was higher than the GLV on the date of the agreement.
The Tribunal held that the present appeal, IT(TP)A No.25/CHNY/2026, was a duplicate appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23. This was confirmed by the assessee's submission and the revenue's concession. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal for the same assessment year had already been adjudicated vide ITA No.708/CHNY/2026, order dated 30.04.2026. Consequently, the Tribunal found that this appeal was a duplicate and was dismissed as withdrawn. No other issues were decided or left undecided.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the assessee's plea for condoning the delay after hearing the assessee and allowing them to file supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the deeming fiction under Section 50C is applicable only for computing capital gains under Section 48 and not for computing the deduction under Section 54F. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for full exemption under Section 54F if the sale consideration is fully invested.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague and therefore bad in law. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the delay in filing the TAR due to medical reasons.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not been presented with all relevant facts regarding the delay, including the hospitalization of the assessee's Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the delay condonation application and the legal issue.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not been presented with all relevant facts regarding the delay, including the hospitalization of the assessee's Chartered Accountant. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the delay condonation application and the legal issue.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16 on April 10, 2022, was barred by limitation. Consequently, all subsequent actions were deemed non-est in the eyes of the law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost deposit, finding the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and passed in violation of natural justice. The assessment was restored to the AO for de novo assessment as the assessee also lacked proper opportunity before the AO.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding Issue 4 (Interest on Trade Receivables): The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that delayed realization of receivables is a consequence of underlying business transactions and commercial considerations. It noted that the assessee consistently did not charge interest on delayed receivables from both AEs and non-AE customers, indicating a uniform commercial policy. The Tribunal relied on precedents like Integra Software Services (P.) Ltd., Toshiba Technical Services International Corporation, and WNS Global Services (P.) Ltd., which held that where no interest is charged from either AEs or non-AEs, and margins under TNMM are accepted as arm's length, a separate adjustment for outstanding receivables may not be warranted. The Tribunal also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trade cycles and realization patterns. It further held that when TNMM is adopted and the assessee's Profit Level Indicator is superior to comparables, receivables should generally be examined in an aggregated manner with the principal transaction. The TPO's methodology was found to be adopted without adequate discussion of commercial realities or demonstration of arm's length assumptions. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 28,15,625/- on account of notional interest on trade receivables was directed to be deleted. This ground was allowed. The judgment excerpt provided only details the decision on Ground No. 5 (Issue 4). The findings on Issues 1, 2, and 3 are not recorded in the provided text.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by rejecting the delay condonation application without a proper hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague and therefore bad in law. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for the delay in filing the TAR due to medical reasons.
The Tribunal held that the impugned final assessment order dated 23.09.2025 is barred by limitation under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Ramco Cements Ltd., which held that the date of receipt of DRP directions by the AO is when they are uploaded to the ITBA portal and become visible to the Faceless AO (FAO) and JAO. In this case, the DRP order was made available in the ITBA portal on 31.07.2025. Therefore, the clock started ticking for the AO from 31.07.2025, and the final assessment order should have been passed by 31.08.2025. The order passed on 23.09.2025 is thus beyond the prescribed limitation. Consequently, the additions made in the impugned order are not sustainable and are liable to be deleted. Since the main ground regarding limitation was decided in favour of the assessee, other grounds on merits became academic and did not require separate adjudication.
The Tribunal decided both issues in favor of the assessee. Regarding the transfer pricing issue, the Tribunal excluded two comparable companies: I Design Engineering Solutions Ltd. because it failed the related party transaction (RPT) filter (35.94% RPT income against the TPO's filter of <25%), and Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. due to a lack of segmental information and its diversified activities beyond engineering design, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal directed the TPO to re-compute the ALP. Concerning the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), the Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case had held that the impugned payments did not fall under the definition of 'Royalty' as per the DTAA and therefore did not warrant withholding tax deduction under Section 195. Consequently, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) for failure to deduct tax at source was deleted. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval was obtained from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, which is the competent authority for reopening beyond three years. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty levied were quashed.