Loading ITAT cases…
422 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal decided that the TPO erred in applying incorrect comparables and denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 92CA(3). The TPO also incorrectly computed the Net Profit Margin (NPM) and deviated from established principles of consistency.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence, including bank statements and financial statements of the lender companies. The Tribunal found that the lender companies had sufficient own funds or had generated funds through borrowings or liquidation of assets to provide the loans.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not complied with notices, but considering substantial injustice, decided to grant one more opportunity. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of commission payments to M/s A.S. Marketing and M/s Action Udyog, considering the nature of their business and past allowances. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the amount of exempt income earned.
The Tribunal held that loan acquisition costs and NCD/commercial paper issue expenses are not deferred revenue expenses and should be allowed as claimed. It also upheld the deletion of Infosys Technologies Ltd. from the list of comparables for benchmarking software development services.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate crucial grounds related to the non-provision of collected material and the evidential value of retracted statements. The Tribunal emphasized the violation of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination of witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year. It was found that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not confirm actual service of notices on the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the Assessing Officer's failure to pass a speaking order on the assessee's objections. It also agreed with the CIT(A) that the payment to the sponsor society was a legitimate application of income for charitable purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not sufficiently substantiated the source of funds. However, considering the circumstances and the sons being well-settled, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to prove his claim.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s decision was based on a Tribunal ruling that was subsequently reversed by the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal followed the directions of the Delhi High Court and a coordinate bench, remanding the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20,00,000/- should not be filed or should be withdrawn. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below the limit, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate crucial grounds related to the non-provision of collected material and the evidential value of retracted statements. The Tribunal emphasized the violation of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination of witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition.
The Tribunal decided that disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted as no exempt income was earned, following previous precedents. However, disallowance for delayed EPF/ESI contributions was upheld based on a High Court ruling. Deductions under Sections 10A and 80IB were allowed as per the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts and applying a higher profit rate without sufficient reason. The disallowance of car expenses was also found to be ad-hoc and unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was indeed share application money, not a loan, and since shares were subsequently allotted, no notional interest should be charged. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and, following a precedent from the assessee's brother's case, set aside grounds related to the sale of poplar trees and agricultural stock to the AO for fresh consideration. Ground 1 was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent non-appearance demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without deciding the issues on merit, which violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without deciding the issues on merit, which violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to properly investigate the transaction by not summoning M/s Kumar Sales. The CIT(A) also erred in invoking Section 68 without proper examination, especially when sales out of these purchases were accepted. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had merely borrowed information from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind, making the reopening invalid. Citing precedents, the Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the addition cannot be made solely on the basis of bank statements when the assessee is engaged in business. However, following its own previous orders for the assessee's own case, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order, acknowledging the mistake in dismissing the appeal based on an outdated circular. However, applying a newer CBDT circular with a higher monetary limit, the Tribunal found the appeal not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the reasons recorded did not demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, as required by the first proviso to Section 147. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer's own findings contradicted the basis for reopening, as the assessee had not claimed to have received donations from the alleged donor.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were invalid because inappropriate words were not struck off, and the specific limb of the section under which penalty was levied was not mentioned. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that borrowed funds were not used for non-business advances, confirming the disallowance of interest expenses. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of rent expenses due to the assessee's failure to furnish documentary evidence of rent payments and ownership of the property.
The Tribunal held that if the revised return was to be ignored as per the CIT's direction, then the entire assessment should be based on the original return. The addition of Rs. 5,12,059/- made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transactions. It further decided that the 'berry ratio' should be accepted as the most appropriate PLI for determining the arm's length price (ALP).
The Tribunal held that hostel and transportation facilities are incidental to the main object of education and not separate business activities. It also held that the amendment to Section 11 regarding depreciation is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that hostel and transportation facilities are incidental to the main object of education and not separate business activities. It also held that the amendment to Section 11 regarding depreciation is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that hostel and transportation facilities are incidental to the main object of education and not separate business activities. It also held that the amendment to Section 11 regarding depreciation is prospective and does not apply to the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal recalled its previous ex-parte order. However, upon re-hearing, it was found that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit stipulated by CBDT circular No. 03/2018, making the appeal not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transactions. It further decided that the 'berry ratio' should be accepted as the most appropriate PLI for determining the arm's length price (ALP).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted for the motor car expenses and depreciation as full particulars were available and the vehicle was used for business. The Tribunal also held that penalty cannot be levied on ad-hoc disallowances of expenses.