Loading ITAT cases…
371 orders · Page 5 of 8
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Aptico Limited and WAPCOS Limited as comparables due to functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental data. It directed the inclusion of India Tourism Development Corporation Limited and Idma Laboratories Limited as comparables based on previous rulings and functional similarity in specific segments.
The Tribunal held that bill discounting charges are not in the nature of commission under Section 194H and that the assessee had duly obtained declarations from transporters for freight charges under Section 194C(6), exempting them from TDS. Therefore, the additions and interest levied were deleted.
The Tribunal held that penalty is not leviable as the assessee is a public sector undertaking and no malafide intention can be attributed. Furthermore, the disallowances were based on retrospective amendments or had been deleted in the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance was called for regarding maintenance expenses, citing the rule of consistency and the separate nature of the assessee's business activities. For depreciation on lifts, the AO was directed to compute it as per the CIT(A)'s directions.
The Tribunal held that bill discounting charges are not in the nature of commission under Section 194H and that the assessee had duly obtained declarations from transporters for freight charges under Section 194C(6), exempting them from TDS. Therefore, the additions and interest levied were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee company, being a subsidiary of a public company, is deemed to be a public company under the Companies Act, 2013. Consequently, Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the onus under Section 68 by establishing the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and capacity of the investors. The Tribunal found that the transactions were through banking channels and reflected in bank statements.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54, changing 'a residential house' to 'one residential house', was effective from April 1, 2015. Therefore, for the assessment year 2013-14 (prior to the amendment), investment in multiple residential units could be considered for exemption.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the onus under Section 68 by establishing the identity, genuineness of transactions through banking channels, and the capacity of the investors, as evidenced by the documents provided.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance was called for regarding maintenance expenses, citing the rule of consistency and the separate nature of the assessee's business activities. For depreciation on lifts, the AO was directed to compute it as per the CIT(A)'s directions.
The Tribunal held that the AO's decision to disallow 20% of general expenses, after due application of mind, cannot be termed erroneous simply because the PCIT was not satisfied. The twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue were not met.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. held that employee's contribution to PF/ESI must be deposited on or before the due date to be eligible for deduction. The AO is directed to examine the facts of payment in accordance with this judgment.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had already suo motu disallowed the amount and disclosed it, the disallowance by the Assessing Officer was redundant. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of unexplained jewellery was not justified, considering the assessee's status and the various judicial pronouncements on the subject. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs, finding no rational basis for treating a portion of the cash deposit as unexplained when the total cash sales exceeded the deposit amount. The assessee's business of selling two-wheelers in cash was also considered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. It also found that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition related to the loan and sustained the deletion of the addition under Section 35(2AB) based on subsequent approvals.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not applied their mind to the basic fact of whether a return was filed, leading to a flawed reopening. Consequently, the notice issued for reassessment was quashed, and the assessment order was deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed orders without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the authorities below regarding the charging of interest. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 81,250/- as unexplained expenditure was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification and reconciliation of the TDS claim. The assessee was directed to clarify any queries from the AO promptly.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to make an effective representation, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the return, as there is no presumption that everyone knows the law. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to EPF/ESI, if paid after the due date, is not eligible for deduction as per the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The amounts are considered income held in trust and must be deposited by the due date.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, thus denying a proper opportunity for hearing. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the AO lacked sufficient evidence to prove the transactions were undertaken by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to obtain complete transaction details and re-assess the case.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous order in the assessee's favor, as the facts were identical. The Tribunal noted that the revenue's appeals were pending before higher courts but had not been stayed, thus the previous ITAT order still held sway.
The tribunal dismissed the grounds related to ESI and PF deductions, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, it allowed the ground regarding interest on income tax refunds, directing the AO to verify if the amount was offered for tax on receipt basis.
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and is not liable for income tax, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were based on incorrect facts. Consequently, the assessment was deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's reasons for the delay and condoned it. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to adhere to the statutory requirement of providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard before passing the best judgment assessment.
The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own cases for other assessment years, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed for statistical purposes due to insolvency proceedings and an approved resolution plan. Therefore, the current appeals were also dismissed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. Based on the prayer made, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and is not liable for income tax, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition made.
The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own cases for other assessment years, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed for statistical purposes due to insolvency proceedings and an approved resolution plan. Therefore, the current appeals were also dismissed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous order in the assessee's favor, as the facts were identical. The Tribunal noted that the revenue's appeals were pending before higher courts but had not been stayed, thus the previous ITAT order still held sway.
The Tribunal found that the tax authorities had reasonably appreciated the seized material. The addition of Rs. 10 lakh was confirmed as the seized material belonged to the relevant assessment year and the explanation provided was not satisfactory.
The Tribunal found that the assessment proceedings might not have had effective representation and that the AO should have verified facts regarding the HUF and other legal heirs. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeal could not be proceeded with due to defects and the assessee's non-appearance. The grounds of appeal also appeared to relate to quantum proceedings, not penalty proceedings as suggested by the order under challenge.
The Tribunal held that BTIL does not constitute a fixed place PE of the assessee in India. Consequently, profits from offshore supplies to BTIL cannot be taxed in India as the title passed outside the country.
The Tribunal held that neither the Project Office at Vadodara nor BTIL constituted a fixed place PE of the assessee in India. Consequently, the grounds of appeal related to the attribution of income to a PE were upheld in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the introduction of an additional ground of appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 concerning the mandatory use of Document Identification Number (DIN). Since the assessment orders lacked a DIN, they were deemed invalid and never issued.
The Tribunal allowed the introduction of an additional ground of appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 concerning the mandatory use of Document Identification Number (DIN). Since the assessment orders did not bear a DIN, they were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was invalid and deemed to have never been passed as it violated CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 by not quoting the mandatory DIN. The absence of DIN renders the order void ab initio.
The Tribunal allowed the introduction of an additional ground of appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 concerning the mandatory use of Document Identification Number (DIN). Since the assessment orders lacked a DIN, they were deemed invalid and never issued.
The Tribunal held that neither the Project Office at Vadodara nor BTIL constituted a fixed place PE of the assessee in India. Consequently, the grounds of appeal related to the attribution of income to a PE were upheld in favor of the assessee.