Loading ITAT cases…
391 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years, the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), not the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). Therefore, the notice was invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of carriage inward expenses and that stamp duty/registration charges for land acquisition are capital in nature. Therefore, both disallowances were confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the difference in disallowance computation under Rule 8D was bona fide and did not involve concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Revenue failed to establish any such concealment.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee and providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the firm becoming defunct. It granted one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case properly before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause for the delay. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal held that Ground No. 1, concerning general defects in the assessment order, was not pressed by the assessee and was dismissed as not pressed. Regarding the adjustment of notional interest on receivables (Ground No. 3), the Tribunal noted that the assessee is a debt-free company and the agreed credit period with AEs is 90 days, while the TPO used only 30 days. The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2020-21, which deleted a similar adjustment, holding that the revenue cannot dictate business practices and that commercial expediency guides business decisions. The Tribunal also referred to decisions in Tech Books International Pvt Ltd. and Outsource Partners International Pvt Ltd. Therefore, the TP adjustment towards notional interest on overdue receivables was deleted. Regarding the disallowance of ESPP expenditure (Ground No. 2), the Tribunal, respectfully following judicial precedents like PVP Ventures Ltd., Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd., and others, held that the AO/DRP were incorrect in disallowing the ESPP cost. The Tribunal directed the deletion of this disallowance. Ground No. 4 was consequential and did not require separate adjudication. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided both issues in favor of the assessee. Regarding the downward adjustment on interest on CCDs, the Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2020-21 had held that CCDs, until converted, are in the nature of debt. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in Stahl India Pvt. Ltd. where it was held that CCDs constitute debt and interest payable is deductible until conversion into equity. The Tribunal further observed that the department had not preferred an appeal against the earlier decision and that similar views were taken in other cases. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO/TPO with a similar direction, allowing Ground No.2 for statistical purposes. For the upward adjustment on interest on receivables, the Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Indo American Jewellery Ltd. and the Tribunal's own decision in Elgi Rubber Co. Ltd., which held that delayed realization of receivables is a commercial consideration and that consistency in not charging interest on delayed receivables from both AEs and non-AEs supports the assessee's position. The Tribunal also cited several other coordinate bench decisions supporting this view. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to delete the adjustment made towards interest on receivables, allowing the ground raised by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing documentary evidence for the loans. The Revenue failed to rebut this evidence with cogent material, making the addition unsustainable.
The tribunal noted that the current appeal was a duplicate of a previously filed and numbered appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted the additional documents as evidence, finding them relevant and necessary for a proper adjudication. However, since these documents were not examined by the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal decided the following: Regarding TP adjustment towards interest on outstanding trade receivables (Ground No. 4): The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision in the assessee's own case for AY 20-21 and 21-22, where similar adjustments were deleted. It noted that the assessee was debt-free for the year ended 31.03.2022, making the ratio applicable. The revenue did not present new material. Therefore, the AO/TPO were directed to delete the adjustment made towards interest on receivables. The ratio is that for a debt-free company, notional interest on overdue receivables should not be treated as a separate international transaction for TP adjustment, especially when the jurisdictional tribunal has ruled similarly in prior years. Regarding disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 35(1)(iv) (Ground No. 5): The Tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed 100% deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) for its R&D facility. The AO disallowed it, citing lack of evidence. The Tribunal referred to its own decision in the assessee's case for AY 2020-21 & 2021-22. It held that Section 115BAA does not restrict claims under Section 35(1)(iv), though it prohibits Section 35(2AB). The contention that Form 3CM is not a mandate for Section 35(1)(iv) claims was upheld, citing Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd and MAHLE Behr India (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction as claimed. The ratio is that capital expenditure on scientific research is allowable under Section 35(1)(iv) even if Form 3CM is not submitted, and this deduction is not barred by Section 115BAA, unlike Section 35(2AB). Grounds 1 & 2 were not pressed and dismissed. Ground 6 is consequential. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the application and the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 5 lakhs for expenses could not be sustained due to the destruction of records in the Chennai floods and the lack of specific findings of bogus expenditure by the AO. The issue of interest disallowance was not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall result indicates it was not fully allowed.
The Tribunal held that a procedural or technical error in an electronically filed return should not defeat a substantive claim when it is otherwise established by contemporaneous statutory records. The assessee is entitled to the correct deduction as per Form 56F and computation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and following precedent. The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the enhanced exemption limit of Rs. 25,00,000/- for leave encashment as per recent notifications.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's rural background and reliance on counsel, granted one more opportunity for proper representation. The case was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication after calling for necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a change of opinion, as the material relied upon for reopening predated the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's lack of knowledge and reliance on a professional who was ill. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the re-characterization of income and application of Section 50C without proper notice to the assessee required fresh adjudication. The issues regarding the head of income, applicability of Section 50C, claim for deduction under Section 54, and taxation of the co-owner's share were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A when the bank accounts were used for admitted business purposes and other credits were accepted as business turnover. The addition was deleted as the deposits could be part of business receipts.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 17,25,000/- was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the sales were recorded in books and supported by evidence. However, the Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 9,90,500/- sustained by the CIT(A) also could not be sustained as the assessee had explained the source as business receipts supported by books.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law because the approval for reopening was not obtained from the specified authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act, as the reopening was initiated beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to be diligent and provide necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were clearly reflected in the assessee's books of accounts and the explanation regarding the source of investment was plausible. The addition was made on suspicion and surmises, and therefore, the Assessing Officer should delete the addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the reply filed by the assessee during appellate proceedings. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the AO passed ex-parte orders and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to delay without condoning it. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The twin conditions for assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 were not satisfied, making the revisionary jurisdiction unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the AO passed ex-parte orders and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals due to delay without condoning it. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's lack of knowledge and reliance on a professional who was ill. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which was crucial for substantiating the source of cash deposits. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of these evidences.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. Both the quantum appeal and the consequential penalty appeal were remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were clearly reflected in the assessee's books of accounts and the explanation regarding the source of investment was plausible. The addition was made on suspicion and surmises, and therefore, the Assessing Officer should delete the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. Considering the ex-parte assessment and the availability of supporting documents, the Tribunal decided to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause shown by the assessee. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment, directing the assessee to be diligent.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. Both the quantum appeal and the consequential penalty appeal were remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment.