Loading ITAT cases…
395 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free surplus funds, and following judicial precedents, presumed that interest-free advances were made from these funds, thus deleting the interest disallowance. Regarding the stock discrepancy, the Tribunal noted that the issue had previously been decided in the assessee's favor for an earlier assessment year by the CIT(A) and upheld by the jurisdictional High Court. Consequently, the addition for stock discrepancy in the current year was also deleted.
The Tribunal deleted additions related to cash deposits and savings bank interest as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The addition related to share investments was restored to the AO for fresh examination due to lack of clarity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal deleted additions related to cash deposits and savings bank interest as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The addition related to share investments was remanded for fresh examination due to lack of clarity in the appellate order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had recorded sufficient satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A. However, it directed re-computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) based on investments yielding exempt income during the year. The issue of depreciation on leasehold property was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issue of TDS on lease rent paid to NOIDA was covered by its own earlier decisions for preceding assessment years and by the Delhi High Court's ruling in Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd., which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Following these precedents, the Tribunal set aside the matter and restored it to the AO to re-adjudicate by adhering to the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal deleted additions related to cash deposits and savings bank interest as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The addition related to share investments was remanded for fresh examination due to lack of clarity in the appellate order.
The Tribunal deleted additions related to cash deposits and savings bank interest as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The addition related to share investments was remanded for fresh examination due to lack of clarity in the appellate order.
The Tribunal, noting that the majority of the additions pertained to opening balances and with no objection from the Departmental Representative for a remand, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the matter afresh, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to present all supporting evidence, and then decide the issue in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that once a Keyman Insurance Policy is assigned by the employer to the employee, its character changes to that of an ordinary life insurance policy. Consequently, the maturity proceeds received by the individual assessee are exempt from tax under Section 10(10D) of the Act, and the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) under Section 28(vi) was not justified, relying on binding precedents.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had recorded sufficient satisfaction for disallowance under Section 14A. However, it directed re-computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) based on investments yielding exempt income during the year. The issue of depreciation on leasehold property was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal determined that the tax effect of the Revenue's appeal was Rs.15,12,067/-, which is less than the Rs.50 lakh monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Since the appeal did not fall under any exceptions, it was deemed not maintainable under the Board's instructions.
The Tribunal identified the root cause of the dispute as non-reconciliation of income with the tax credit shown in Form 26AS. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and directing the assessee to furnish a reconciliation statement.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that since the Assessing Officer (AO) made no additions regarding the issues for which reassessment was initiated, the very basis for the belief of escaped income vanished, rendering the reassessment order unsustainable. Consequently, the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 could not be validly exercised to revise an unsustainable order. The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents, concluded that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the additional payments made subsequent to the registration of the sale deed were not illegal under the Indian Stamp Act. These payments were considered part of the business expenditure for acquiring the land.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) sustained the addition without providing clear reasons for rejecting the assessee's claim that the cash-in-hand originated from business profits. It noted that if the assessee's turnover indeed exceeded the 44AD limit, the CIT(A) should have taken appropriate legal action instead of merely confirming the addition. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to give a clear finding on the assessee's claim regarding business transactions in cash and therefore deleted the impugned addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee showed no interest in pursuing the appeal, as they neither attended the proceedings nor arranged for representation on several occasions after the appeal was recalled. Consequently, the Tribunal was left with no option but to dismiss the appeal due to the assessee's non-cooperation.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance by the AO and restricted by the CIT(A) was not justified. The AO failed to record satisfaction on the assessee's suo-moto disallowance, did not consider investments made from interest-free funds, and included non-dividend yielding investments and investments in foreign entities taxable in India in the disallowance calculation.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee lacked effective representation before lower authorities and that the CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-appearance, held that the claim for depreciation on fixed assets is legal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue of depreciation claim to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification. The AO is to allow the claim if the assessee is found entitled.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order granting relief to the assessee. The tribunal noted that figures in Form 26AS can change with rectifications by payers and that the assessee provided detailed reconciliation, particularly emphasizing that all payers were government entities, minimizing the scope for undisclosed income. The revenue's argument regarding improper maintenance of books and rejection under section 145(3) was deemed to have no impact as no estimated profit determination was done.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfied the conditions for actual write-off as per the Supreme Court's decision in Vijaya Bank. Since the facts and circumstances were similar to preceding years where similar claims were allowed and appeals were dismissed by the High Court, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found that the AO should have verified the nature of the repairs more thoroughly to determine if they were for routine upkeep or brought enduring benefit. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh verification.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the disallowance of the Section 54 deduction. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not acquire or construct the new residential house within the prescribed time frame, and the claim of purchasing a bare-shell flat was unsubstantiated. Therefore, the conditions for claiming exemption under Section 54 of the Act were not fulfilled.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of not receiving the assessment notices. To uphold principles of natural justice and ensure fairness, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with a directive to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and present their case.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of not receiving notices from the AO, thereby being denied an adequate opportunity of being heard. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the file of the AO for a *de novo* assessment, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal dismissed the first appeal (ITA No. 2652/DEL/2019) due to lack of jurisdiction in Delhi, granting liberty to file it in Chandigarh. The second appeal (ITA No. 2653/DEL/2019) was allowed in part for statistical purposes, and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the decision of the first appeal.
The Tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench order and a Delhi High Court judgment, restored the issue to the AO. The AO is directed to verify if Greater NOIDA had paid the basic TDS liability with interest; if so, no liability for interest under Section 201(1A) should be raised on the assessee. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench order and a Delhi High Court judgment, restored the issue to the AO. The AO is directed to verify if Greater NOIDA had paid the basic TDS liability with interest; if so, no liability for interest under Section 201(1A) should be raised on the assessee. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had erred in its consideration of the DAPE issue, potentially due to factual inaccuracies regarding prior Tribunal rulings. The Tribunal set aside the DRP's order and remanded the case for fresh consideration of the DAPE existence.
The Tribunal dismissed the first appeal (ITA No. 2652/DEL/2019) due to lack of jurisdiction in Delhi, granting liberty to file it in Chandigarh. The second appeal (ITA No. 2653/DEL/2019) was allowed in part for statistical purposes, and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the decision of the first appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective. It was an 'omnibus' notice that failed to specifically indicate whether the penalty proceedings were for 'concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. Following precedents from the jurisdictional High Court (PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) and Bombay High Court (Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT), the Tribunal concluded that such a vague notice is a fatal defect, rendering the penalty order invalid. The penalty was therefore directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee company was incorporated and granted a license during the previous year, indicating the business had commenced. Therefore, the claimed loss is allowable as a business loss to be carried forward.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the 80IC disallowance and to treat the royalty expenditure as revenue, citing consistent prior tribunal and High Court judgments in the assessee's own case. The assessee's cross-objection regarding section 115-O and DTAA was rejected, following a Special Bench decision that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is a company's liability not subject to DTAA beneficial rates for shareholders.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all necessary details and supporting evidence. It observed that the AO failed to conduct any inquiry, made selective additions only for seven parties despite larger transactions and numerous creditors, and had already accepted the purchases and related payments. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained on mere conjectures and ordered its deletion.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the 80IC disallowance and to treat the royalty expenditure as revenue, citing consistent prior tribunal and High Court judgments in the assessee's own case. The assessee's cross-objection regarding section 115-O and DTAA was rejected, following a Special Bench decision that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is a company's liability not subject to DTAA beneficial rates for shareholders.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions for HR recruitment and telephone/communication services, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning to be well-reasoned. For professional services, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s partial allowance of 50% of the expenses, deeming it a reasonable approach.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balak Capital Pvt. Ltd. and the settled position of law regarding territorial jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal within 60 days before the appropriate Jurisdictional Tribunal.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's repeated failure to respond to notices but, for the ends of justice, granted one more opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A). This opportunity is subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- into the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within 45 days and submitting proof thereof. The issue on merits is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions for HR recruitment and telephone/communication services, finding the CIT(A)'s reasoning to be well-reasoned. For professional services, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s partial allowance of 50% of the expenses, deeming it a reasonable approach.
The Tribunal noted that the 3rd proviso to Section 50C(1) allows a tolerance band of up to 10% variance. Citing the retrospective application of the Finance Act, 2018 amendment (which introduced this 10% tolerance band from 01.04.2003), the Tribunal held that no substitution of the sale consideration was warranted as the 4.97% variance was within the permissible limit. Consequently, the assessee's declared sale consideration of Rs. 1.10 crores was accepted for computing Long Term Capital Gain.
The Tribunal held that commission expenses to overseas agents for procuring export orders are not taxable in India and thus Section 195 is not applicable. It also held that ESOP expenses are allowable as business expenditure and that no adjustment is warranted for commission on standby letter of credit if no cost is borne by the assessee and actual charges are recovered.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not properly appreciate the voluminous documents submitted by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication (de novo) and allowed the assessee to furnish further evidence. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had previously withdrawn the appeal before the CIT(A), which led to its dismissal. However, the assessee now wished to pursue the appeal. In the interest of justice, the tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not properly appreciate the voluminous documents submitted by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication (de novo) and allowed the assessee to furnish further evidence. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to make independent inquiries to disprove the assessee's evidence regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loans. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 for AY 2012-13 was deleted.
The Tribunal held the reopening was bad in law because the AO failed to independently examine the sale deed, which clearly showed six co-sharers, indicating non-application of mind. Relying on a similar case for a co-sharer, the Tribunal concluded the reopening was mechanical and set it aside. Consequently, the addition on merits and the penalty imposed were quashed.
The Tribunal held the reopening was bad in law because the AO failed to independently examine the sale deed, which clearly showed six co-sharers, indicating non-application of mind. Relying on a similar case for a co-sharer, the Tribunal concluded the reopening was mechanical and set it aside. Consequently, the addition on merits and the penalty imposed were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of the Rs. 4,24,77,876/- addition, finding no reason to interfere with the deletion of unexplained credits. However, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by restricting ad-hoc disallowances on material purchases and site expenses to 5%.
The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the stay application as infructuous. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to give the assessee an opportunity to file a condonation of delay application with an affidavit, after which the appeal on merits would be decided afresh.
The Tribunal found that the assessee maintained sufficient overall cash balance across its branches and the cash book entries reflecting the inter-branch transfer were not rejected by the revenue. As there was no negative cash balance on any given day, the Tribunal concluded that the seized cash of Rs. 13 lakhs could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act.