Loading ITAT cases…
395 orders · Page 6 of 8
The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-appearance, which prevented any contradiction of the findings of the lower authorities. Since the CIT(A) had already considered the assessee's online reply before confirming the additions, the Tribunal found no reason to entertain the appeal and consequently dismissed it.
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority erred by dismissing the appeal without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh determination on merits after providing adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the issue of PE was covered by previous orders of the Tribunal which deleted similar additions. The Tribunal found that the transactions between the assessee and its Indian AE were at arm's length, and thus no further profit attribution to a PE was warranted.
The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to examine the chart of payments submitted by the assessee and verify its factual accuracy. The assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard during this process.
The Tribunal held that accumulated cash savings of Rs.4,00,000 by a husband and wife over years cannot be deemed unexplained, especially considering the CBDT circular allowing cash holdings up to Rs.2,50,000. Concluding that the lower authorities erred in making the addition, the Tribunal set aside their orders.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved an opportunity to substantiate its claim for 80G registration. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh order on merits, specifically instructing to consider the issue of delay in filing the application.
The Tribunal held that the issue of ceding commission and its taxability under sections 40(a)(ia)/194D was covered by its previous orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Relying on decisions from the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Tribunal concluded that ceding commission, being reimbursement of expenses, does not fall under remuneration for soliciting or procuring insurance business, and therefore, no TDS is required.
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order as it had considered all contentions and dealt with issues in detail. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal found that the issues regarding the classification of logistic services, GAM charges, and lease line charges as FTS/FIS or royalty had been consistently decided in the assessee's favor in multiple preceding assessment years by co-ordinate benches and a High Court. As there was no change in the factual or legal position and the Revenue presented no contrary binding precedent, the Tribunal upheld its consistent view and deleted the impugned additions, allowing grounds 2, 3, and 4 of the appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not avail proper opportunities before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal restored Ground No. 1, pertaining to the lack of opportunity, to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to fully cooperate. Ground No. 2, concerning the merit of the addition, was not adjudicated due to the remand.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the reasons recorded lacked independent application of mind and were based on incorrect factual premises. The additions under Section 68 were also found to be erroneous as the transactions were high sea sales with corresponding sales recorded in the books.
The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A) overlooked the assessee's reported income as a small job worker regarding the cash deposits. It decided to restore the case to the AO, granting the assessee an opportunity to clarify the sources of deposits and withdrawals from business and agricultural income, and to issue a fresh order after proper verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the Assessee's income from the resale of off-the-shelf hardware and software products is not taxable as 'Royalty'. It affirmed that the Assessee acts as a pure non-exclusive distributor and is not involved in customized software or technical solutions, directly aligning with the Supreme Court's precedent.
The Tribunal noted the absence of the Assessee during the hearing but accepted the Managing Director's request for withdrawal, as the Senior Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the sole requirement for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(iii) is that the loan must be borrowed for the purpose of the assessee's business, which the Assessing Officer had accepted. It noted that the TPO had not made any variation regarding related party transactions, and similar interest payments to related entities were undisputed in previous assessment years. Thus, there was no merit in the disallowances.
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.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition. It found that the assessee was a developer, not a contractor, and that the Project Completion Method was consistently followed and acceptable.
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.
Despite several notices, the assessee failed to appear and did not rectify the procedural defect of submitting an application for condonation of delay with an affidavit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as defective.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the reasons recorded lacked independent application of mind and were based on incorrect factual premises. The additions under Section 68 were also found to be erroneous as the transactions were high sea sales with corresponding sales recorded in the books.
The Tribunal held that service tax/GST, being a statutory levy collected for the government, is not includible in the gross receipts for the purpose of computing presumptive income under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed established High Court and Tribunal precedents.
The Tribunal held that service tax/GST, being a statutory levy collected for the government, should not be included in the gross receipts for the purpose of computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's binding precedent in PCIT vs Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., held that notional interest cannot be added to receivables from an AE. Finding the facts to be identical to the cited precedent, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and decided the issue in favor of the assessee.
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.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) indeed passed the order without considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard and considering all submissions filed by the assessee.
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.
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.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2013-14 had already been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Respectfully following this prior decision, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's current appeal. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT-I, affirmed that employee contributions to PF/ESI are deductible only if deposited by the statutory due dates. Payments made beyond these dates are not allowable. However, the Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim of certain payments being made within due dates and allow such deductions after due verification.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decided to issue a corrigendum to amend the title of the original order. This ensures that ITA No.157/Del/2021 is officially included in the cause title, as the previous decision was pari materia applicable to it.
The Tribunal held that the sole requirement for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(iii) is that the loan must be borrowed for the purpose of the assessee's business, which the Assessing Officer had accepted. It noted that the TPO had not made any variation regarding related party transactions, and similar interest payments to related entities were undisputed in previous assessment years. Thus, there was no merit in the disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law because the very same issue had already been examined during the original Section 143(3) proceedings. Since the reopening occurred after four years, it was invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Consequently, the notice issued for re-examining the previously scrutinized issue was treated as bad in law, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay acceptable, noting that the legislative intention of Section 54EC was not frustrated. It held that the delay was due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances. The Tribunal therefore directed the authorities to grant the assessee the benefits of the investment made in REC Bonds under section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without affording the assessee an adequate opportunity to file submissions. Consequently, the case is remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s discretion to condone the delay, especially since the audit report and Form 10B were obtained prior to filing the return. It dismissed the Revenue's appeal, but directed the Assessing Officer to admit the audit report with Form 10B and decide the issue afresh as per law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation for the 8 parties and that the stock did not belong to the assessee. The AO's addition was based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence.
The Tribunal ruled that the alleged error did not qualify as a 'mistake apparent from record' under the narrow scope of Section 154, thus dismissing the rectification appeal in limine as not maintainable. However, the Tribunal granted the assessee the liberty to file a fresh appeal against the original Section 143(1) order on its merits, with a favorable consideration for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions of disallowances related to security charges, interest payments, professional charges, foreign exchange loss, and facility management charges. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the disallowance of interest on an advance.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum orders had already been remanded to the CIT(A). Consequently, in the interest of justice, the penalty appeals were also remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, contingent upon the outcome of the quantum appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum orders had already been remanded to the CIT(A). Consequently, in the interest of justice, the penalty appeals were also remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, contingent upon the outcome of the quantum appeals.
The assessee's counsel informed the Tribunal that the matter has been admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Both parties agreed that the appeals before the ITAT should be dismissed as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to re-approach the Tribunal after the NCLT proceedings are concluded.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, affirming that the assessee correctly applied the Net Asset Value method as per Rule 11UA(2)(a) for determining the FMV of unquoted equity shares. It clarified that this method does not require a separate valuation report, unlike the Discounted Free Cash Flow method, and the valuation figures were supported by audited financial statements.
The tribunal dismissed Ground 1 (MFN clause for 5% dividend tax) as the assessee conceded the need for a separate notification. Ground 2 (tax rate application on assessed income) was remanded to the AO for re-verification. Ground 3 (levy of interest u/s 234A & 234B) was deemed consequential, with directions for the AO to re-compute it, and Ground 4 (penalty proceedings u/s 270A) was dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal held that if the AO found deficiencies in the assessee's valuation report, it should have been rejected outright, and the matter referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value and cost of construction. The issue was restored to the AO for denovo adjudication, with directions to refer the matter to the DVO and allow indexation benefit.
The Tribunal, following a consistent view and precedent from the assessee's own prior cases, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to verify the assessee's claim that the entire interest income was indeed deposited into the Government Account and then to decide the issue based on the binding precedent.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ex parte despite the assessee's adjournment request and confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. Recognizing that the hearings occurred during the peak of COVID-19, the Tribunal found the assessee had valid reasons for non-appearance. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the Ld. First Appellate Authority for de novo adjudication with proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ex parte despite the assessee's adjournment request and confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. Recognizing that the hearings occurred during the peak of COVID-19, the Tribunal found the assessee had valid reasons for non-appearance. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the Ld. First Appellate Authority for de novo adjudication with proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the date of recording the satisfaction note, not the date of search, is to be considered for calculating the six-year period for Section 153C assessments. It also held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made in assessments under Section 153C without incriminating material found during search.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ex parte despite the assessee's adjournment request and confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. Recognizing that the hearings occurred during the peak of COVID-19, the Tribunal found the assessee had valid reasons for non-appearance. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the Ld. First Appellate Authority for de novo adjudication with proper opportunity to the assessee.