Loading ITAT cases…
429 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal held that the denial of FTC solely based on the absence of a foreign tax authority certificate was contrary to Rule 128(8) of the Income-tax Rules. The rule allows for substantiation through a self-certified statement with evidence of payment.
The Tribunal held that an amount already offered as income under 'Income from other sources' cannot be assessed again as unexplained cash credit. However, the disallowance of interest expenditure was upheld due to lack of evidence of business utilization of borrowed funds.
The Tribunal held that the market value for inter-unit transfer of electricity should be the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplies power to industrial consumers, not the rate at which it purchases power from generators. The TP adjustment made by the TPO was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut it, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to comply with Rule 46A.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of export commission was to be decided against the assessee based on the Supreme Court's decision in Nestle SA. However, the Tribunal allowed depreciation on goodwill, following the Supreme Court's decision in Smifs Securities Ltd., and directed the AO to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was beyond the scope of prima facie adjustments as the issue was debatable at the time of intimation, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The adjustment was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that an amount already offered as income under 'Income from other sources' cannot be assessed again as unexplained cash credit. However, the disallowance of interest expenditure was upheld due to lack of evidence of business utilization of borrowed funds.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 80JJAA deduction was not justified as Form 10DA was filed as additional evidence and the substantive conditions were met. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of notional interest on receivables, finding it unsustainable as the assessee was debt-free and no prejudice was shown.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary burden by providing documentary evidence for the share transaction. The Revenue failed to rebut this evidence with positive material.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence and participate. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed on additions made under deeming provisions like Section 56(2)(x) as it does not constitute under-reporting or misreporting of income. The penalty notice also failed to specify the limb of Section 270A attracted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the reasons provided by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals were admitted for adjudication on merits, as the assessee remained non-compliant throughout the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to participate in proceedings but, to meet the ends of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without properly assessing the delay and that the CPC's rectification order violated Section 154(3) by enhancing liability without a hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as sufficient cause was shown. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by accepting the assessee's reasons as sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by adopting a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The matter was then remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification of eligible deductions.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under the unamended Section 149(1) for AY 2015-16. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed as invalid.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case and evidence. The Tribunal explicitly kept all legal and factual contentions open for both parties.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for not filing the return was bona fide, as he substantially declared his income and paid taxes before assessment completion. The penalty under Section 270A was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's poor health. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 143(3) supersedes the intimation under Section 143(1) due to the doctrine of merger. The assessee should have appealed against the Section 143(3) order. The appeal against the 143(1) intimation is allowed for the difference in income, and the other issue is remanded.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, with approval from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT as required by Section 151(ii), is invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings based on this invalid notice are quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), holding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal addressed the grounds of appeal concerning the transfer pricing adjustment. Regarding the exclusion of M/s. Ashok Alco-Chem Ltd., the Tribunal, respectfully following a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2020-21, directed the TPO to include this company in the list of comparables. For H D Micrones Ltd., Shivom Minerals Ltd., Gimpex Pvt. Ltd., and Naga Ltd., the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that these companies were functionally dissimilar due to their primary engagement in manufacturing. It directed the TPO to exclude Shivom Minerals Ltd. and Naga Ltd. as they were primarily engaged in manufacturing. For Gimpex Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held it should be deleted from the list of comparables. For H D Micrones Ltd., the Tribunal noted that income was mainly derived from processed clay with no clear trading activity and directed its exclusion. The Tribunal also directed the TPO to examine records and consider correct margins while re-computing the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The legal contention regarding limitation was left undecided as the grounds were considered on merits. Additional grounds raised by the assessee were not pressed and hence not admitted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay of 839 days. The delay was occasioned by the assessee's bona fide ignorance regarding the retrospective enhancement of exemption. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantial interest-free funds (share capital and reserves) which were more than the advances made to subsidiary concerns. In the absence of evidence from the Revenue linking borrowed funds to these advances, it was presumed that the advances were made from interest-free funds.