Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 3 of 9
The ITAT condoned the delay of 131 days before it, subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000. The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay of 249 days before it, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000, and to adjudicate the issue on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 253 days on payment of costs and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider the delay condonation petition and adjudicate the issue on merits, allowing the assessee to file evidence.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if ex-parte, and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the grounds of appeal. Given the circumstances of the notices going to the spam folder, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was able to provide certified bank statements for all accounts, showing total credits of Rs. 72,75,131/-, not Rs. 1.49 crores as alleged by the AO. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo assessment.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the condition of filing Form 67 within the due date is directory in nature. Since the assessee filed Form 67 before the AO's rejection order, the FTC claim should not have been disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were vague as they did not specify the exact fault of the assessee. Furthermore, the tax audit reports were available before the processing of returns. Therefore, the penalty levied was bad in law.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments made in a District Central Cooperative Bank, which is itself a cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The AO erred in disallowing the claim based on a misinterpretation of the nature of the income and the eligible entities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be faulted for not responding to notices sent to an invalid email ID. Therefore, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's lack of knowledge of e-proceedings. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P solely due to a delay in filing the return is a procedural aspect that should not override the substantive entitlement, especially when there is no tax evasion. The Tribunal referred to a High Court judgment and CBDT circulars empowering the condonation of such delays.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio because the notice under Section 148A(b) did not provide the mandatory seven clear days for response. As the assessment order was invalid, the subsequent penalty levied under Section 270A was also deemed null and void.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal found that the AO passed the assessment order without giving a proper opportunity to the assessee and restored the assessment back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order, citing violation of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition and adjudicate the issue on merits, allowing the assessee to file supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that prior to the amendment of Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015 (effective from 01.06.2015), there was no enabling provision to levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements. Therefore, such levies for periods before this date are invalid.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were vague as they did not specify the exact fault of the assessee. Furthermore, the tax audit reports were available before the processing of returns. Therefore, the penalty levied was bad in law.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's assertion of not receiving notices due to spam was plausible. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the applications for fresh consideration, granting the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that Section 43CB of the Income-tax Act, applicable for the assessment years in question, mandates recognition of revenue over the contract period for service contracts. Therefore, the proportionate recognition of AMC income was legally correct.
The Tribunal held that imparting Vedic education is not a religious activity but a way of life and a means of acquiring knowledge. Therefore, the classification of the trust as 'religious cum charitable' was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that Section 43CB of the Income-tax Act, applicable for the assessment years in question, mandates recognition of revenue over the contract period for service contracts. Therefore, the proportionate recognition of AMC income was legally correct.
The Tribunal held that since the cancellation order was set aside, the basis for rejecting the renewal application for 12A registration and 80G approval no longer existed. Therefore, the application for renewal should be considered on merits.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal held that the entire gross professional receipts cannot automatically be treated as net income solely due to the non-filing of a return. Considering the assessee's offer, subsequent consistent treatment by revenue, and the nature of the profession, 50% of the gross receipts was deemed a reasonable basis for income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after calling for necessary details and a remand report.
The Tribunal found the 10% ad-hoc disallowance to be on the higher side given the nature of the business and high volume of transactions. It directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 5%.
The Tribunal noted that the original assessment order was subject to appeal and had been restored to the Assessing Officer by a prior Tribunal order. Given this, and the lack of serious objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on 31.07.2022 was barred by limitation as per the un-amended provisions of Section 149(1). The reassessment proceedings and order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
On the issue of downward adjustment towards support services (Ground No.4), the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, noting it was similar to earlier Assessment Years. Following a previous decision of the Tribunal in ITA.Nos.2754 & 2757/Chny/2024, the matter was remanded back to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication after verifying the additional evidence and ascertaining the benefit derived by the assessee. The TPO was directed to adopt the TNMM method. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the adjustment to the margin in the IPS division (Ground No.2), the Tribunal held that the current year margin of the comparable companies should be compared with the current year margin of the assessee. This was based on the jurisdictional Tribunal's decision in Brakes India Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.47/Chny/2024, which advocated for an equitable comparison by considering current year data or weighted averages. This ground was partly allowed. Concerning interest on overdue receivables (Ground No.5), the Tribunal noted that the assessee is a debt-free company and the lease liability is an Ind AS disclosure. Relying on the jurisdictional Tribunal's decision in Temenos India Pvt Ltd in IT(TP)A.No.32/Chny/2024, which held that no transfer pricing adjustment is required for imputing interest cost on outstanding trade receivables from AEs when the assessee is debt-free, the addition on interest on overdue receivables was deleted. The corresponding grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's lack of awareness and reliance on a tax consultant who provided inadequate support. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced evidence of a money lending business license and maintained books of accounts, which were not adequately verified by the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal held that since the cancellation order was set aside, the basis for rejecting the renewal application for 12A registration and 80G approval no longer existed. Therefore, the application for renewal should be considered on merits.
The Tribunal held that the State Bank of India is liable as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source on LFC for the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to deduct TDS is independent of the ability to recover the amount from employees or the pendency of legal proceedings, especially when there was no active stay order preventing the deduction itself. The Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 8181 of 2022, which held LFC to be taxable, was a key factor. The Tribunal noted that while the bank might have faced difficulties in recovery, this did not absolve them of their primary duty to deduct tax when legally required. The appeals were dismissed on the substantive issue of being an assessee in default. Regarding interest under Section 201(1A), it was held to be mandatory, but the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, allowing the appellant to file petitions for periods where recovery was stayed or employees paid self-assessment tax.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, directing the assessee to participate actively with proper explanations and evidence. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but granted a last chance for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that tax can only be charged on real income, not notional or unreal income. Since the assessee neither received nor had a reasonable assurance of receiving the amount in question, it was not taxable.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained money, finding that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence to establish the genuineness of the cash deposits and the corresponding sales, despite the revision of VAT returns and other discrepancies.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was not willful and not detrimental to revenue, especially as the assessee was residing abroad. The penalty was deleted considering the assessee's explanation and subsequent compliance.