Loading ITAT cases…
524 orders · Page 2 of 11
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had opted for physical notices in Form 35, electronic notices issued by the CIT(A) could not be considered as due issuance and service. Therefore, the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that since the vehicle was purchased, paid for, and delivered before September 30th, it was available for use and thus entitled to full depreciation for the entire year, irrespective of the later registration date.
The Tribunal held that the AO's final assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as it failed to comply with the DRP's directions. The Tribunal emphasized that once a final assessment order is passed, the AO cannot unilaterally modify or substitute it, as this is against the scheme of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not press the ground related to PF & ESI due to a Supreme Court decision. For the remaining grounds, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided a proper opportunity of being heard and had passed the order in violation of natural justice principles. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation. The amendment to Section 201(3) of the Income Tax Act, which extended the time limit, was prospective and could not revive a period of limitation that had already expired.
The Tribunal held that the funds received by the assessee society were held in trust for the Government of India and were to be utilized for public purposes. Interest earned on unutilized funds deposited in FDRs could not be treated as income of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are for services rendered for the maintenance of common areas and do not fall under the definition of 'rent' for Section 194I. Therefore, TDS at 2% under Section 194C is applicable.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the DCIT, Circle 3(1), Haridwar, was indeed illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal respectfully followed the judgment of the jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in PCIT vs. Mohd. Rizwan, which held that where a notice under Section 148 is issued by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction, the entire reassessment proceedings are void ab initio. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional AO (ITO, Ward 2(2), Muzaffarnagar) had not issued any notice under Section 148. The Tribunal also observed that Section 292BB of the Act, which deals with the curability of defects in notice service, is not applicable to a lack of valid jurisdiction in the issuing authority. The Tribunal concluded that jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by consent, and an assessee cannot confer jurisdiction on an authority that inherently lacks it. Therefore, the reassessment order dated 05.12.2018 was quashed. Other grounds of appeal were not adjudicated as the entire proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the IT and SAP services were not ancillary and subsidiary to the technical collaboration agreement, and thus did not qualify as FTS under Article 12(4)(a) of the India-Portugal DTAA. The 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) was also not met.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, not containing a DIN and failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 for manual issuance, is invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on FDRs was inextricably linked to the project implementation, as the FDRs were used as margin money for bank guarantees. Therefore, the interest was a capital receipt that should reduce the project cost.
The Tribunal held that the issue of transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenses is covered in favour of the assessee by its own previous orders. The Tribunal also decided an issue regarding the allocation of common expenses in favour of the assessee, finding the assessee's turnover basis of allocation to be reasonable.
The Tribunal found that the partnership firm was dissolved and the bank account was operated by Ms. Arti Chauhan in her individual capacity. The deposit was declared in her return, and the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them for want of prosecution. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. and other ITAT rulings, the Tribunal stated that deduction for employees' contribution is allowed only if deposited within the due date prescribed by the respective Acts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the temple offerings, building fund, and Hundi collections as corpus donations. The issue of application of income for renovation was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay and without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them for want of prosecution. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, issued without a mandatory DIN and without adhering to the conditions for manual issuance as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, is invalid and deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P Ltd. vs. CIT, held that delayed deposit of employee contributions to PF and ESI beyond the due date prescribed under the respective Acts leads to disallowance. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered clarificatory.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Project Office in India constituted a Permanent Establishment (PE) as it was still operational for contractual and legal proceedings. Consequently, interest income connected to the PE should be treated as business profit and expenses incurred by the PE should be set off against it.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, not containing a DIN and failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 for manual issuance, is invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. and other ITAT rulings, the Tribunal stated that deduction for employees' contribution is allowed only if deposited within the due date prescribed by the respective Acts.
The Tribunal held that the issue of transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenses is covered in favour of the assessee by its own previous orders. The Tribunal also decided an issue regarding the allocation of common expenses in favour of the assessee, finding the assessee's turnover basis of allocation to be reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of transfer pricing adjustment on account of AMP expenses is covered in favour of the assessee by its own previous orders. The Tribunal also decided an issue regarding the allocation of common expenses in favour of the assessee, finding the assessee's turnover basis of allocation to be reasonable.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals), finding no valid reasons to reverse the addition. The assessee failed to provide evidence to support her claims of cash sales and gifts, thus the cash deposit was treated as unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, no addition can be made to a completed assessment under Section 153A. The Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. was cited.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF & ESI beyond the due date stipulated in the respective Acts leads to disallowance, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The assessee's argument of depositing before the return filing due date was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF & ESI beyond the due date stipulated in the respective Acts leads to disallowance, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The assessee's argument of depositing before the return filing due date was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the issue of transfer pricing adjustments for interest on receivables and the SDS/ITES segment has been decided in favour of the assessee in its own previous assessment years. Following these precedents, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's Project Office in India constituted a Permanent Establishment (PE) as it was still operational for contractual and legal proceedings. Consequently, interest income connected to the PE should be treated as business profit and expenses incurred by the PE should be set off against it.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to raw material consumption, royalty, and job work expenses. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and the AO had accepted the same during remand proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold limit and no exceptions were demonstrated by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid jurisdiction. Since the notice under Section 148 was issued after four years and there was no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, the notice and the subsequent reassessment order were void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that interest expense directly linked to investments yielding taxable income is not disallowable under Section 14A. It also held that Section 14A read with Rule 8D does not apply to investments on which no exempt income was received during the relevant year.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any exceptions to this circular.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A)'s directions to tax perquisites and take action for non-deduction of TDS on interest-free loans to directors were beyond his jurisdiction as these issues were not part of the grounds of appeal before him.
The ITAT set aside the impugned first appellate order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case and ensure the first appeal is adjudicated as per legal requirements.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's ad-hoc disallowance of mobilization advances was unsustainable as the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the parties were not questioned. The disallowance of expenses was also deemed incorrect as the assessee consistently followed accounting standards for Work in Progress valuation.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings, stating the assessee failed to discharge the burden under Section 68 to establish identity and creditworthiness of the credits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee accepted the addition and paid the tax liability. Therefore, the dispute was resolved, and the appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's ad-hoc disallowance of mobilization advances was unsustainable as the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the parties were not questioned. The disallowance of expenses was also deemed incorrect as the assessee consistently followed accounting standards for Work in Progress valuation.
The Tribunal held that Section 44 of the Act provides a complete code for computing profits of an insurance company, making Section 14A inapplicable for disallowances. It also allowed the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(38) for profit on sale of investments, subject to verification of STT payment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of agricultural income, citing consistency in past assessments and the nature of the activity. It also upheld the deletion of the addition for outstanding liabilities, relying on Supreme Court precedent that unilateral write-offs do not automatically trigger Section 41(1). Finally, it upheld the deletion of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), agreeing that only investments yielding tax-free income should be considered.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid jurisdiction. Since the notice under Section 148 was issued after four years and there was no allegation of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, the notice and the subsequent reassessment order were void ab initio.
The Tribunal noted that no consequential order had been passed by the Assessing Officer within the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the directions of the PCIT could not be implemented, rendering the appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions based on un-confronted statements and documents collected behind the assessee's back are unsustainable. The assessee was deprived of their right to confront and controvert the material.
The Tribunal held that Section 43CA is not applicable where agreements were entered into and substantial payments received prior to its insertion. The addition sustained by the CIT(A) for a transaction where initial payment was in cash prior to the insertion of Section 43CA was also reversed.
The Tribunal held that maintenance charges received for providing additional facilities unconnected to the leased premises are not part of rental income. Therefore, such income should be treated as income from business, and related expenses should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted any effective inquiry into the earning of long-term capital gains or the deduction claimed under Section 54F. The assessee failed to appear or provide submissions to controvert these findings.