Loading ITAT cases…
395 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal held that the assets, though initially invoiced to an associate, were effectively transferred to the assessee via inter-office memos and were in use. The assessee also billed its Associate Enterprise (AE) on a cost-plus 15% basis, which included the depreciation component, and this revenue was accepted by the department. Therefore, the condition of assets being 'put to use' was satisfied, and the department could not deny the depreciation claim.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment for the second time based on the same information and from the same entities, without any new material, is bad in law. The assessment order was consequently treated as void ab initio.
The tribunal, following the binding precedent of the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case, ruled that payments for data transmission services are not 'Royalty' or 'FTS' under the DTAA, and unilateral domestic law amendments cannot override the DTAA. It directed the AO to delete the impugned addition and grant credit for TDS after verification. The ground for interest charges was deemed consequential, while the penalty initiation ground was dismissed as premature.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that during remand proceedings, all six contractors were produced before the AO and confirmed supplying labor. The CIT(A) explained the initial non-traceability due to a contractor shifting residence and clarified the cash withdrawal and ex-employee aspects as practical arrangements for continuous labor supply. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in its well-reasoned decision.
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that during remand proceedings, all six contractors were produced before the AO and confirmed supplying labor. The CIT(A) explained the initial non-traceability due to a contractor shifting residence and clarified the cash withdrawal and ex-employee aspects as practical arrangements for continuous labor supply. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in its well-reasoned decision.
The Tribunal held that interest under section 234B is leviable only up to the date of the order admitting the settlement application (Section 245D(1)), not up to the date of the final settlement order (Section 245D(4)). The Settlement Commission cannot reopen concluded proceedings under Section 154 to levy interest.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to comment. Therefore, the issues of training expenses and office/general expenses disallowances were restored to the AO. However, the disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) were upheld in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal, relying on various High Court judgments and the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., held that no addition can be made in assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act if no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, particularly for completed or unabated assessments. Since the additions by the AO in this case were not based on any seized incriminating material, the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal, relying on various High Court judgments and the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., held that no addition can be made in assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act if no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, particularly for completed or unabated assessments. Since the additions by the AO in this case were not based on any seized incriminating material, the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective addition on account of unexplained credit entries. It was held that since the assessee acted as a conduit and the beneficiaries were identified, no addition could be made in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective addition on account of unexplained credit entries. It was held that since the assessee acted as a conduit and the beneficiaries were identified, no addition could be made in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Check Mate Services Pvt. Ltd. 448 ITR 518, held that employee contributions (ESI/EPF) are held in trust and must be deposited on or before the statutory due date for deduction. This principle, which distinguishes employee contributions from the employer's own liability, is equally applicable to intimations under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, not just scrutiny assessments.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Check Mate Services Pvt. Ltd. 448 ITR 518, held that employee contributions (ESI/EPF) are held in trust and must be deposited on or before the statutory due date for deduction. This principle, which distinguishes employee contributions from the employer's own liability, is equally applicable to intimations under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, not just scrutiny assessments.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the adjustments to book profit had not been properly examined as per the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to recompute the book profit in accordance with Section 115JB, ensuring the assessee is given a fair opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's detailed submissions, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and duly consider all submissions.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide conclusive evidence of service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. It held that proper service of this notice is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement, not a curable defect under Section 292BB if the objection is raised before the assessment is completed. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. It stipulated a caveat that if the dispute is not ultimately resolved under the VSVS Scheme, the assessee is at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal. The Assessing Officer is also at liberty to confirm the final settlement under the VSVS.
The Tribunal decided that several substantive issues in the appeal were covered by its own previous decisions for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on specific grounds, including transfer pricing and retention money, considering new statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that interest on income tax refund is not effectively connected with the PE, even if the branch office existed. Therefore, it should be taxed as interest income under Article 12 of the India-France DTAA, not as business income under Article 7.
The Tribunal restored the Section 80JJAA deduction claim to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to furnish Form 10DA. For the advance received, the Tribunal noted the matter was sub-judice before the High Court. For the business loss and advance write-offs, the Tribunal directed the AO to decide afresh, considering the assessee's contentions and allowing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a tax resident of Mauritius with a valid TRC, is eligible for DTAA benefits. Capital gains from the sale of shares acquired before April 1, 2017, are exempt under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA.
The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% of the impugned bogus purchases, noting that payments were made by cheque/RTGS and emphasizing the principle of taxing only real income. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no factual error in its findings and agreeing that a 10% disallowance, representing the profit attributable to such transactions, was appropriate. Consequently, both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiry regarding the share premium and goodwill valuation, as evidenced by the questionnaire and the assessee's detailed replies. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and the PCIT's revisionary action was unjustified.
The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue did not object to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acceding to the assessee's request.
The Tribunal noted that this was a legacy issue covered by its own prior decisions. Following these precedents, the Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment on export commission was not sustainable.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, without delving into the merits of the case.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) lacks the power under Section 251 of the Income Tax Act to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution in a summary manner. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order after granting the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was not empowered by Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, instructing them to provide adequate opportunity of being heard and to consider the additional ground raised by the assessee.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, stating that Section 251 of the Income-tax Act does not empower such an order. Consequently, the tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, instructing to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, without delving into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to examine the determination of the 'due date' for remittance of PF/ESI contributions (whether based on salary payable or salary paid month) in light of precedents, and provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to present facts.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, without delving into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, without delving into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim, finding sufficient documentary evidence that the slurry machine was put to use. The commission paid for liaisoning services was also allowed as a legitimate business expenditure under Section 37(1). The ground for disallowing interest on loan was not pressed by the assessee. However, the disallowance of sponsorship fees was upheld, as it was deemed a personal expenditure unrelated to the business.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the funds were borrowed for the purpose of earning interest income by providing loans and advances, and noting that TDS was deducted on the interest paid to the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, agreeing that there was merit in setting off the interest paid against the interest earned, and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is required if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. This decision was based on precedents set by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the ITAT Special Bench.
The Tribunal, referring to a related prior order, found that the CIT(A)'s view that gold coins and ginnies are not 'jewellery' for CBDT Instruction No. 1916 was contrary to the AO's own findings. Concluding that the AO's addition was not made on the basis that the items were not jewellery, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the Rs. 2,84,691/- addition. The ground concerning Rs. 80,000/- was not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, holding that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court's decision in Check Mate Services Private Limited. The Supreme Court clarified that employees' contributions must be deposited on or before the due date specified by the relevant welfare enactments, and not merely before the income tax return filing date, to be eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's right to appeal, noted their repeated non-compliance. It allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, but directed the assessee to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo hearing, with the CIT(A) directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and the defective nature of the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate all issues afresh, including the legality of the reassessment proceedings under Section 148.
The tribunal found that the AO was not justified in making a full addition for the alleged bogus purchases, especially since there were corresponding sales and the assessee's books of account, which were audited, were not rejected under section 145(3). The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 1.45% of the gross profit embedded in such purchases, amounting to Rs. 6,41,204/-. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully explained the source of payment as being made by the company. Therefore, Section 69C was not applicable.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 was not sustainable. Since the assessment order was quashed on this preliminary legal ground, the tribunal found it unnecessary to examine the merits of the addition under section 68.