Loading ITAT cases…
406 orders · Page 3 of 9
Following a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 and other similar cases, the Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Addl. CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders, which were based on this invalid approval, were quashed.
Following a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 and other similar cases, the Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Addl. CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders, which were based on this invalid approval, were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted an elaborate enquiry and taken a plausible view regarding the exemption of interest on enhanced compensation. Since the issue was debatable and the AO's view was legally sustainable, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be erroneous.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's mental health issues. It admitted the additional evidence but, requiring factual verification, restored the issue on merits to the learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to take the additional evidence on record and pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning ad hoc disallowances of expenses and interest paid to banks, following previous year's orders. For selling and distribution expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 10% of the expenses, finding the Assessing Officer's 25% disallowance excessive.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent order by the SAFEMA Tribunal which set aside the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the benami attachment. Given this development, which was foundational to the original assessment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication in light of the SAFEMA Tribunal's order, which also allowed the Department to initiate independent action.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Assessing Officer had made proper inquiries and accepted a view supported by Supreme Court decisions, making the issue debatable. The PCIT's order was based on an audit objection and a High Court decision that did not consider subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal noted that Priyank Sukhija had admitted ownership of the cash and offered it for taxation before the settlement commission, a fact not available to the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of this claim. If the claim is found correct, no addition should be made in the hands of the assessee, and the penalty appeal would be decided accordingly.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning ad hoc disallowances of expenses and interest paid to banks, following previous year's orders. For selling and distribution expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 10% of the expenses, finding the Assessing Officer's 25% disallowance excessive.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding ad hoc disallowances and interest paid to banks, following earlier year's precedents. For selling and distribution expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 10% of the expenses, finding the Assessing Officer's 25% disallowance excessive.
The Tribunal noted that Priyank Sukhija had admitted ownership of the cash and offered it for taxation before the settlement commission, a fact not available to the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of this claim. If the claim is found correct, no addition should be made in the hands of the assessee, and the penalty appeal would be decided accordingly.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the concurrent findings of the lower tax authorities, concluding that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital subscription under Section 68. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings, noting the assessee's lack of efforts to rebut the presumption drawn by the AO based on the inquiry reports.
The Tribunal interpreted the time limit provision to avoid an absurd outcome for trusts that commenced activities long ago. It held that the application was maintainable and directed the CIT(E) to treat it as filed within the statutory time. The CIT(E) was further instructed to verify the assessee's eligibility and provide an opportunity to file all necessary documents for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Department's representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that lower authorities had not properly appreciated the facts, stating that merely mentioning a figure in the wrong column should not enhance income. The appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo adjudication on the issue in accordance with law.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's family dispute as a sufficient cause for not furnishing necessary details earlier. It deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. AO for denovo adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to provide details regarding the source of cash deposits.
Considering the assessee's non-compliance and the submission of additional evidence, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Revenue was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings if there was non-compliance with notices from the authorities.
The Tribunal held that brand ambassador expenses and advertisement/sales promotion expenses are revenue in nature and incurred for augmenting sales and facilitating business operations, not for creating enduring assets. The provision for warranty expenses was also considered a deductible revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the assessment year 2015-16 was a search year, and the assessment proceedings could not be completed under section 153A or 153C. The approval granted under section 153D was deemed mechanical and without proper application of mind, leading to jurisdictional defects in the assessment. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside as invalid.
The ITAT found that the assessee acted bona fide and had sufficient cause for any potential delay due to non-service and non-reflection of the assessment order on the e-portal. Consequently, the ITAT condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration and fresh determination of the appeal on its merits, after providing proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished maximum evidence to prove the source of cash deposits from prior withdrawals and past savings, with a sufficient opening cash balance. It noted that the revenue failed to bring any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the cash deposits were duly explained and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The Tribunal observed that no incriminating material relating to the assessee was found during the search and seizure operation. Citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Kabul Chawla and the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited, the Tribunal reiterated that additions in a search assessment under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material unearthed during the search. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It held that the issue of taxability of income from the sale of software licenses as royalty is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in *Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs CIT*, and therefore, the receipts were not in the nature of royalty under Article 12 of the India-Japan DTAA.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, as the application was supported by evidence of opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the Departmental Representative raised no objection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the quantum appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred by not properly appreciating the AO's remand report, which provided crucial details on the utilization of borrowed funds for property purchases. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the quantum appeal concerning the disallowance of interest to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering the remand report, making the rectification appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding a sufficient cause for its delayed submission and that the documents were essential for a fair adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on the registration application, directing the CIT(E) to consider the newly admitted documents and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It held that the issue of taxability of income from the sale of software licenses as royalty is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in *Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs CIT*, and therefore, the receipts were not in the nature of royalty under Article 12 of the India-Japan DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law as there was no tangible material before the AO to infer that income had escaped assessment due to CCM. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given one last opportunity to present its case before the AO. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. Citing its own previous rulings in the assessee's and Minda Group's cases, the Tribunal reiterated that assessments framed under sections 153A/153C without any incriminating material found during the search are invalid and beyond jurisdiction. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. Citing its own previous rulings in the assessee's and Minda Group's cases, the Tribunal reiterated that assessments framed under sections 153A/153C without any incriminating material found during the search are invalid and beyond jurisdiction. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessment made under Section 153C for AY 2013-14, consequent to the satisfaction note recorded on March 26, 2021, was beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the assessment was treated as void ab initio.
The Tribunal observed that the father's assessment, which accepted the source of investment for the jointly purchased property, was completed after the assessee's assessment. Considering this, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issue of unexplained investment to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in light of the assessment framed for the assessee's father. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. Citing its own previous rulings in the assessee's and Minda Group's cases, the Tribunal reiterated that assessments framed under sections 153A/153C without any incriminating material found during the search are invalid and beyond jurisdiction. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the jewellery rightfully belonged to Ms. Vasudha Lodha, the assessee's daughter, and had already been taxed in her hands through an order dated 30.12.2019 under Section 143(3). Consequently, the deletion of the addition in the assessee's hands by the CIT(A) was deemed lawful and upheld.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on the basis of the revised grounds, violating natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the revised grounds on merits after allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal confirmed that no notice dated 29.03.2010 existed on record, and the only valid notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 21.10.2010. Since the six-month time limit for issuing the notice expired on 30.09.2010, the notice issued on 21.10.2010 was time-barred. Consequently, the assessment order based on this time-barred notice was declared illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs Kabul Chawla. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that the addition was based on entries in the books of account and not on incriminating material found during the search. Citing the Supreme Court's ratio in Abhisar Buildwell, the Tribunal concluded that such an addition, without incriminating material, is not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed Ground No. (i) as not pressed. It directed the deletion of the addition of Rs 2,28,960/- made u/s 68, finding that the assessee had made payments and not received money. Regarding the alleged bogus purchases, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for de-novo adjudication to establish if goods were actually supplied and consumed/sold, stating that the addition was based on suspicion and the revenue failed to prove any cash trail back to the assessee.
The ITAT held that Section 251 of the Income Tax Act does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Consequently, the tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) with directions to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make additions on grounds not forming part of the reasons for reopening if the original reasons for reopening are not pursued or accepted. The addition made under Section 68 was quashed as it was based on an issue that came to the AO's notice subsequently, and the original grounds for reopening were not addressed.
The Tribunal held that since the India-Thailand DTAA does not contain a specific FTS clause, the income received by the non-resident assessee for business support services should be treated as business income under Article 7 of the DTAA. As the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment in India, the income was not taxable in India. The Tribunal emphasized that tax treaties allocate taxing rights and in the absence of a specific FTS clause, the general business profits article applies.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application for condonation of delay due to the inordinate and unexplained delay of over four years. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed as time-barred.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to prior assessment years for the assessee and M/s Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., where the Delhi High Court had confirmed the Tribunal's decision allowing depreciation. It was held that the Central Excise Duty Exemption is a revenue receipt and cannot reduce the cost of assets for depreciation purposes. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority to allow the depreciation claim.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to prior assessment years for the assessee and M/s Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., where the Delhi High Court had confirmed the Tribunal's decision allowing depreciation. It was held that the Central Excise Duty Exemption is a revenue receipt and cannot reduce the cost of assets for depreciation purposes. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority to allow the depreciation claim.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to prior assessment years for the assessee and M/s Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., where the Delhi High Court had confirmed the Tribunal's decision allowing depreciation. It was held that the Central Excise Duty Exemption is a revenue receipt and cannot reduce the cost of assets for depreciation purposes. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority to allow the depreciation claim.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to prior assessment years for the assessee and M/s Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., where the Delhi High Court had confirmed the Tribunal's decision allowing depreciation. It was held that the Central Excise Duty Exemption is a revenue receipt and cannot reduce the cost of assets for depreciation purposes. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority to allow the depreciation claim.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh, the Tribunal held that for Section 153C proceedings against a 'person other than the searched person,' the date of search is the date of recording the satisfaction note by the AO of the searched person. As this date was 22.02.2021, the relevant block of six assessment years commenced from A.Y. 2015-16. Since A.Y. 2014-15 fell outside this statutory six-year block, the assessment order was invalid and quashed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was a 'hollow & cosmetic approval' accorded without application of mind, and thus unenforceable. Relying on earlier tribunal decisions and an Allahabad High Court judgment, the ITAT quashed the assessment orders. The cross-objections by the assessee were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.