Loading ITAT cases…
395 orders · Page 5 of 8
The Tribunal held that, after a concurrent reading of Sections 5, 9, and 15 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no taxability arises on the salary/allowances received by the assessee. This decision was based on the fact that the assessee is a non-resident and has rendered the services outside India, therefore the income was not 'earned in India' as required for taxability under Section 9(1)(ii).
The Tribunal held that the addition based on an unregistered agreement to sell, which was never executed and was cancelled, is unwarranted when the property was subsequently sold through a registered sale deed. Consequently, the penalty levied on the basis of this addition was also deleted.
The Tribunal found that no notice under Section 154(3) was issued or proven to have been served for the adjustments made, thereby vitiating the assessment order. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The revenue was granted liberty to present evidence of proper notice issuance and service to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the grounds merely questioned the CIT(A)'s decision to follow a High Court judgment in the assessee's own case. Such grounds are invalid without demonstrating factual differences or a subsequent contrary Supreme Court order.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that delayed deposits of employees' contributions to ESI and PF are not allowable. It affirmed that such amounts, held in trust and deemed income, must be deposited by the due dates mandated by relevant welfare enactments, and Section 43B does not absolve the employer from this liability. The decision was based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P Ltd. vs. CIT.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that share-based compensation expenses are revenue expenditure and deductible. It also agreed that payments to the US company were for manpower supply and did not constitute FTS under the India-USA DTAA, thus no TDS was required.
The Tribunal held that if the delay in depositing PF and ESI contributions is not due to the assessee's failure but rather due to a system failure (EPFO website being non-functional), then the assessee should not be penalized. It distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in *Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT-1*, stating it does not apply when the delay is not attributable to the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that if the delay in depositing PF and ESI contributions is not due to the assessee's failure but rather due to a system failure (EPFO website being non-functional), then the assessee should not be penalized. It distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in *Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT-1*, stating it does not apply when the delay is not attributable to the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer's notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) failed to explicitly state the limb of default (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Relying on the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadow, affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal ruled that such an unspecific notice renders the penalty bad in law and accordingly deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal, citing CBDT Circular F.No.173/193/2019-ITA-I and Circular 02/2018, clarified that trusts registered under Section 12AA are entitled to Section 11 exemption if the return is filed within the time allowed under Section 139. As the assessee filed its return on 19.12.2018, which was before the extended due date of 31.03.2019 for AY 2018-19, the denial of exemption was unjustified. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries regarding cash deposits and sales during the assessment proceedings, and the assessee had provided the necessary documentation. Therefore, the revision order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating any of the grounds or deciding the matter on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded all the issues raised in the grounds of appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, to be decided in accordance with law, after verifying the records about the service of notice under section 143(2) and providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The AO's disallowances were found to be ad-hoc and lacking proper justification or evidence to doubt the genuineness of the expenses claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on an unregistered agreement to sell, which was never executed and was cancelled, is unwarranted when the property was subsequently sold through a registered sale deed. Consequently, the penalty levied on the basis of this addition was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on an unregistered agreement to sell, which was never executed and was cancelled, is unwarranted when the property was subsequently sold through a registered sale deed. Consequently, the penalty levied on the basis of this addition was also deleted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 was invalid as it was based on a mere "change of opinion" without any new tangible material. The Tribunal observed that the issues forming the basis of reopening were already subject to specific queries and responses during the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition for estimated gross profit was justified due to the assessee's failure to produce books of accounts. However, additions for certain cash credits and investment in property were deleted as the assessee discharged the burden of proof regarding identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.
The Tribunal held that since the foundational reassessment order had been annulled by the ITAT, all subsequent orders, including the PCIT's order under section 263 and the assessment order framed pursuant to it, lacked a valid foundation and must therefore also fall. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the share trading transactions were not bogus, as evidenced by audited accounts and an agreement with an associate company for remuneration. Consequently, the disallowance of share trading losses and related expenses was deleted. However, the addition on account of Annual Lettable Value of a property held for sale was upheld.
The Tribunal set aside the order, directing the AO to frame a fresh assessment after considering the DVO report for land valuation. It also restored the claim under section 54B to the AO for re-consideration, citing that the CIT(A) should have admitted it.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on leased cars should be allowed at 30% as they were used for hiring. It also ruled that interest on borrowed capital for acquiring an asset is part of the cost of acquisition. The addition to income from house property was deleted due to the AO's misdirection.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under section 68, finding no reason to interfere with the finding that the amount became an available source in the investor's hands once added there. Consequently, the Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), as the quantum addition was not sustained.
The Tribunal observed that the additional evidence (gift deed, father's IDS disclosure, cash book) was not admitted by the CIT(A) and was crucial for a fair decision. Considering that the interest of justice would be served, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing the AO to examine the additional evidence and submissions from the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under section 68, finding no reason to interfere with the finding that the amount became an available source in the investor's hands once added there. Consequently, the Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), as the quantum addition was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was based on a debatable issue with two possible views, supported by Supreme Court decisions. The PCIT's reliance on a High Court decision, whose SLP was dismissed without detailed reasons, was misplaced, and the revisionary order was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the search concerning the assessee. It further held that a third-party appraisal report and expenses from a different financial year cannot form the basis for additions in the current assessment year. Sections 68 and 69C were also found inapplicable.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) is settled against the assessee by the Supreme Court's ruling. However, for a limited purpose verification of the due dates mentioned in the tax audit report versus the actual due dates, the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is empowered to rectify the order if errors in due dates are found.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for centralized services do not constitute Fee for Technical Services (FTS) or Fee for Included Services (FIS). Following previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, it was concluded that these receipts are business income and, in the absence of a PE in India, are not taxable.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s rejection of the cash book as "baseless and perverse" because the assessee produced the cash book and explained the source of the cash. It noted that the panchnama included family members and the AO had not found any fault with the cash book upon examination. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.10,68,100/-, concluding that the lower authorities erred in making and sustaining it.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the search concerning the assessee. It further held that a third-party appraisal report and expenses from a different financial year cannot form the basis for additions in the current assessment year. Sections 68 and 69C were also found inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not possess the power under Section 251 of the Income Tax Act to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Consequently, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the matter afresh and pass a speaking order on merits after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without providing the assessee a sufficient opportunity of being heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for a de-novo adjudication on merits, allowing proper opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) provided numerous opportunities, the assessee had a history of receiving exemptions after thorough scrutiny in prior years. Emphasizing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the entire issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing to provide adequate opportunity of hearing and consider the assessee's past assessment history.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on all four grounds. It found that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding the Section 68 addition, that Section 14A disallowance should only be on investments yielding exempt income, that the general expenses were for normal business and properly accounted for, and that the long-term capital loss on shares was genuine and duly supported by documentation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. It also noted that the delay in issuing TDS certificates was due to a reasonable cause, as the TDS remittance details were required to be reflected in the certificates.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was correct as it relied on a previous ITAT order that had already set aside the withdrawal of approval. The Revenue failed to present new material to warrant a different view.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine whether the provision for gratuity, supported by an actuarial valuation report, constitutes an ascertained liability as per accounting standards and relevant provisions. The AO is directed to decide the issue after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal decided the amortization of lease rentals against the assessee for the Noida authority lease, following a coordinate bench's decision. For lands at Vishakhapatnam and Tuticorin, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo consideration. The Revenue's grounds concerning Section 14A and deemed tax credit were dismissed, following a High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that averments made in affidavits are prima facie true unless proven otherwise. Since the lower authorities summarily rejected the affidavits and failed to conduct inquiries or bring evidence to rebut them, their action in confirming the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's audited accounts had no discrepancies and that cash sales, from which the cash was generated, had been accepted by the Revenue without rejecting the books of account. The Tribunal held that not accepting the availability of the deposited sum was without proper basis, hence it set aside the lower authorities' orders and decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal decided the amortization of lease rentals against the assessee for the Noida authority lease, following a coordinate bench's decision. For lands at Vishakhapatnam and Tuticorin, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo consideration. The Revenue's grounds concerning Section 14A and deemed tax credit were dismissed, following a High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that in light of the moratorium order issued by the NCLT under Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the present appeal by the Revenue could not be proceeded with. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with liberty granted to the Revenue to approach the Tribunal again after the final outcome of the NCLT proceedings.
The Tribunal decided the amortization of lease rentals against the assessee for Noida authority land, following previous orders, and restored the issue for Visakhapatnam and Tuticorin land to the AO. The Revenue's appeal regarding Section 14A and deemed tax credit was dismissed, following a High Court decision.
The Tribunal decided the amortization of lease rentals against the assessee for the Noida authority lease, following previous rulings. For the Visakhapatnam and Tuticorin land leases, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The Revenue's grounds concerning Section 14A and deemed tax credit were dismissed, following a High Court decision.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the ad-hoc disallowances for foreign travelling and conveyance expenses and software service charges, as the AO's own remand report had found no adverse inference after verifying additional evidences. For the ad-hoc disallowance of employee benefit expenses, and the denial of foreign tax credit and credit for taxes withheld at source, the Tribunal remanded these issues back to the AO for fresh verification and decision, after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the authorities did not dispute the initial withdrawal of Rs.22,00,000/- by the assessee. It accepted the assessee's explanation that the deposited amount was the remaining balance from the withdrawn cash, which could not be utilized for property purchase due to illness and related expenses. Finding considerable cogency in the assessee's claim, the Tribunal concluded that the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found no error in the lower tax authorities' findings. Despite opportunities, the assessee failed to provide adequate financial details of the lender or produce its directors. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was employed with Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited, which is a Government of India Company. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessee was an employee of the Central Government and thus eligible for the deduction under section 10(10AA). The AO was directed to allow the claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, neither a fixed place PE nor an agency PE. The Tribunal found that the business model had changed significantly after 2005, and the revenue authorities failed to establish the existence of a PE based on the current operational model.