Loading ITAT cases…
609 orders · Page 6 of 13
The Tribunal held that the 'approval' obtained from the Additional Commissioner was not a valid 'satisfaction' as required by Section 151(2) of the Act, as it was obtained after the notice was issued and lacked application of mind. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision, held that the JV was not an AOP and therefore, the interest on refund should not be assessed in the hands of the JV. The income should be taxed in the hands of the joint venture partners.
The ITAT held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid as it did not specify the exact charge for which the penalty was being levied. Following established jurisprudence, the tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawals from the assessee's proprietorship concern, M/s. National Trading Company, sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits. The AO's assumption that the funds were for personal expenses was based on conjecture.
The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing issue back to the TPO for a fresh decision, citing violation of natural justice and lack of opportunity for the TPO to respond. However, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to depreciation on temporary structures and computer peripherals, relying on previous ITAT and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal, following the Delhi High Court's decision, held that the JV was not an AOP and therefore, the interest on refund should not be assessed in the hands of the JV. The income should be taxed in the hands of the joint venture partners.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery found was fully explained by the wealth tax disclosures and no addition could be made. The CIT(A)'s sustaining of additions for remaking charges without cogent material was also deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that since there was no change in facts and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench in its own case for AY 2006-07, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the set-off of brought forward losses.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that while the assessee should cooperate, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits based on available material instead of dismissing it in default. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that once books of account are rejected and income is estimated based on Gross Profit (GP) rates, no further disallowance under Section 40A(3) can be made. The AO and CIT(A) erred in making such an addition after rejecting the books.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly accepted the source of the deposit as explained by the assessee. The non-registration of the sale agreement does not invalidate the transaction for Income Tax purposes, especially when the AO did not dispute the genuineness of the parties or the agreement itself.
The Tribunal held that the jewellery found was fully explained by the wealth tax disclosures and no addition could be made. The CIT(A)'s sustaining of additions for remaking charges without cogent material was also deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the issues in dispute should be set aside to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to give the assessee a full opportunity to be heard and consider all submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recalling the order if sufficient cause for absence was shown.
The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of expenditure by the AO does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the income from the NH-45 project was not taxable as FTS under Section 44D but as normal business income. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), considering the provisions of the India-USA DTAA and the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's affidavit regarding a loan for property investment needed thorough verification at the AO's level. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh examination and order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance on account of arm's length price adjustment was allowed for statistical purposes. The revenue's appeal on the same issue was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue concerning the attribution of income from supply of spares and tool-kits to the Chennai PE back to the AO for fresh consideration with additional evidence. It also restored the issue of levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C to the AO for fresh adjudication, following its own previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance on account of arm's length price adjustment was allowed for statistical purposes. The revenue's appeal on the same issue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the lower revenue authorities had not conducted a detailed functional comparability analysis before rejecting the assessee's claim. Therefore, the matter was restored to the TPO for fresh adjudication, with liberty to both parties to engage technical experts.
The tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant, decided to treat the appeal as un-admitted. This decision was based on the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeal effectively.
The Tribunal held that if funds borrowed are used for acquiring stock-in-trade, the interest is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) even if there are no sales during the year. The assessee's contention that land was stock-in-trade was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have disposed of the appeals based on available material rather than dismissing them in default. The principle of natural justice was violated by not affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it in default. In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have disposed of the appeals based on available material rather than dismissing them in default. The principle of natural justice was violated by not affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction, as no order conferring concurrent jurisdiction was produced. Therefore, the assessment was invalid.
The Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue. Regarding the addition under Section 50C, the Tribunal held that Section 50C is a deeming provision for the limited purpose of computing capital gains in the hands of the transferor (seller) and cannot be extended to tax the difference between the apparent consideration and the stamp duty valuation as undisclosed income in the hands of the purchaser. Section 50C does not authorize addition with reference to stamp value as an amount paid by the purchaser. The AO failed to discharge the burden of establishing an understatement of consideration or making independent inquiries to prove the purchase consideration shown in the registered sale deed was lesser than the market value. The Tribunal also noted that the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Usha Kant W Patel (2006) 282 ITR 553 held that the Revenue must establish unrecorded investment, and a presumption based on Section 50C is insufficient. Concerning the cash payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the Tribunal observed that the AO did not appreciate the circumstances under which the cash was given. A certificate from the seller acknowledging receipt of Rs. 5 lakhs in cash was on record, and the assessee's explanation for the delay in cash payment due to cheque clearance was also noted. The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had provided necessary confirmations and bank certificates during appellate proceedings. The additions were not justified as the liabilities were old and properly reflected in the balance sheet.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim of depreciation which is not sustainable in law, when all details are furnished, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was deleted as the claim was considered bona fide.
The Tribunal held that the additions were not justified as the sundry creditors and unsecured loans were old and continuing liabilities shown in the balance sheet. The AO's remand report accepted that these were old, continuing loans and no material was produced to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish a nexus between the interest-bearing funds and the advances made at a lower interest rate. The Tribunal noted the assessee's substantial own capital and that advances were granted in the ordinary course of business for commercial needs.
The Tribunal held that the payment was made on a principal-to-principal basis and not for services rendered, thus Section 194H was not applicable. Furthermore, since the amount was part of closing stock and no deduction was claimed, Section 40(a)(ia) was also not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. The circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that projected profits cannot be used for calculating the assessee's profit level indicator in transfer pricing. It also ruled that Section 10A deduction is not a bar to transfer pricing adjustments and that such adjustments cannot be considered for Section 10A benefit.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for filing appeals before the ITAT, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal should not have been filed or should have been withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(Appeals) provided a basis for applying their respective net profit rates. Therefore, their actions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the revenue to withdraw its appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed or may be withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO had not brought any material on record to prove the expenditure was personal. The Tribunal agreed that disallowances based merely on presumptions and conjectures cannot be sustained without corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO had not properly considered the assessee's submissions regarding the utilization of borrowed funds and the nature of business promotion expenses. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted, and the deletion of business promotion expenses was confirmed.
The Tribunal allowed the revenue to withdraw its appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs should not be filed or may be withdrawn. This withdrawal was not to be considered a precedent for future years.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO erred in disallowing the charitable status despite the assessee having Section 12A registration. The CIT(A) also noted the AO's failure to specify which expenditures were not charitable or beneficial to the common man.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, noting it was covered by the CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during a search. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.