Loading ITAT cases…
534 orders · Page 2 of 11
The Tribunal held that in cases of unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority were deleted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, considering the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Department's agreement, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld that leave encashment deduction is allowable only on an actual payment basis, directing the AO to verify payment dates and allow deduction in the relevant assessment year, citing the Supreme Court decision in *Union of India & ors. vs. Exide Industries Limited & Anr.*. On the issue of excise duty subsidy, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground and, following its own previous decision and the Jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the assessee's own case (*PCIT Vs. Crystal Crop Protection (P) Ltd.*), held that the subsidy is capital in nature and therefore not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence, a now certified segmental financial statement, has a direct and important bearing on deciding the appropriate method to determine the Arm's Length Price for the specified domestic transaction. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that admitting the evidence was necessary for proper adjudication and in the interest of natural justice, as rejecting it would not adhere to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that in cases of unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority were deleted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision of the CIT(A), ruling that ESOP expenses, even if cross-charged by a parent entity, are allowable business expenditures under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, reiterating that such expenses are not notional or contingent and aligning with precedents from various High Courts and ITAT benches.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the specific directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to pass a speaking order after examining the assessee's explanation regarding the investments. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication, strictly in accordance with the DRP's instructions.
The Tribunal held that additions made under section 153A/153C proceedings must be based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was found, the additions were set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's mercantile system of accounting was established and accepted in a previous related order, the disallowance of mobilization advance needed to be re-examined by the AO under this accounting method. Similarly, the disallowance for iron purchases was not sustainable, as payment was made in the relevant financial year, and under mercantile accounting, the timing of stock receipt (whether same or next year) does not invalidate the expense. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidences without proper reasoning, noting the assessee's individual and agriculturist status who initially hadn't filed a return. It found that the additional evidences presented (sale deed, ownership proof, confirmations) strongly supported co-ownership. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the additional evidences and remanded the entire issue back to the AO for fresh enquiry and consideration of the new evidence.
The Tribunal held that in cases of unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority were deleted.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was against the principle of natural justice, as the assessee was not given proper opportunities. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with instructions to provide reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee, and refrained from commenting on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.
The Tribunal ruled that strict adherence to the six-month time limit for applying for final approval from the commencement of activities was an 'impossibility' given that the activities predated the relevant legal regime. Applying the doctrine of impossibility and harmonious interpretation, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed a fresh examination of the application, disregarding the time-bar related to the commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that if the Indian subsidiary (PE) has been remunerated at arm's length, no further profit can be attributed to it. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own case and was affirmed by the High Court.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that if a provision for doubtful advance was created in a previous year (AY 2012-13) and MAT provisions were not applicable in that year due to book loss (even after statutory adjustments), then the subsequent recovery of that advance in a later year (AY 2014-15) should not be subjected to MAT again by adding it back to the book profit.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that if the Indian subsidiary (PE) has been remunerated at arm's length, no further profit can be attributed to it. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own case and was affirmed by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that if the Indian subsidiary (PE) has been remunerated at arm's length, no further profit can be attributed to it. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own case and was affirmed by the High Court.
Finding no change in material facts or legal propositions from previous similar cases, the Tribunal remanded the current issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after affording an opportunity to the assessee, keeping in view the previous ITAT orders.
Both parties agreed that the matter should be referred back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after considering the merits of the issue.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of financial expenses, finding that payments to State Bank of India were evidenced by bank statements, despite claims of lost records due to the factory being under bank possession. It also deleted the disallowance of depreciation, accepting the claim based on audited reports and noting that depreciation allowed in previous years should continue. The AO was directed to allow credit for brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation.
The Tribunal held that prior approval under Section 153D is mandatory and must involve due consideration, not a mechanical process. Despite repeated opportunities, the Department failed to produce any evidence of such valid approval, leading to the presumption that the assessments were completed without the requisite legal approval under Section 153D.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for royalty payment, commission to non-resident agents, and disallowance under Section 14A, citing previous judgments and the fact that the assessee's own funds exceeded investments without earning dividend income. However, the issue of delayed ESI contribution was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in light of a recent Supreme Court judgment. The addition for understatement of income due to TDS mismatch was also deleted as the income was declared in the prior year.
The Tribunal, relying on Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules and various judicial precedents, found that the certified segmental financial statement had a direct and important bearing on determining the Arm's Length Price. Admitting this evidence was deemed necessary for proper adjudication and to ensure principles of natural justice. Therefore, the application for admission of additional evidence was allowed for a limited purpose.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issues of additional service tax and interest on loans to sister concerns back to the AO for fresh examination, emphasizing the need to verify commercial expediency. The disallowance of ad-hoc labour welfare expenses was reversed, and the depreciation disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the mode of issuance and service reports of the notices, despite the assessee having requested email service in Form 35A. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the appeal and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal, considering previous co-ordinate bench decisions, restored the issue of disallowance of delayed employees' contribution to ESI and EPF to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to decide the matter afresh in light of the observations made by the co-ordinate benches of ITAT and provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted tangible differences between the DVO's valuation and the assessee's valuer's report regarding the cost of acquisition of land, finding the assessee's valuation to be based on a closer comparable date, hence no addition on account of cost of land was warranted. It further ruled that brokerage, documentation, litigation, mutation, conversion, and probate expenses are compulsory for property acquisition and sale, and no disallowance is justified without proof of them being bogus or not incurred.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions, clarified that for a non-searched person, the commencement date for computing the six assessment years under Section 153C is the date of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, not the date of search. As the satisfaction was recorded on 23.11.2010, the block of six assessment years commenced from A.Y. 2005-06. Consequently, A.Y. 2004-05 fell outside this block, rendering the assessment order without jurisdiction and thus quashed. The Revenue's appeal, therefore, became infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice issued u/s 143(2), citing the extended limitation period under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. However, it remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order regarding the indexation benefit on amounts paid to HUDA, following DRP directions, and to specifically examine the indexation on interest paid for delayed installments.
The Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the fact that the assessee passed away during the assessment proceedings, leading to a lack of proper representation and opportunity to submit crucial evidence, which the AO is now directed to consider.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's show-cause notice, issued on 24.03.2023 with a reply deadline of 28.03.2023, was grossly inadequate and unreasonable, especially as the proceedings were nearing the limitation expiry of 31.03.2023. This short notice violated the Principles of Natural Justice, leading the Tribunal to set aside the PCIT's order. The matter was restored to the PCIT for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's appeals under a mistaken impression regarding the VSVS settlement. It was established that the disputes related to reassessment orders were never settled under VSVS. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that justice requires considering all material and documents. To achieve this, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after providing a meaningful opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 77 lacs under Section 68 was not sustainable. It found that the assessee had justified the source of the cash deposit with supporting documents, and merely a time gap between cash withdrawals and subsequent deposits, especially when eventually used for Section 54 exemption, does not justify an addition under Section 68. The Departmental Representative also did not object to the veracity of the assessee's documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition u/s 68, finding that the amount was already accounted for in the previous assessment year and properly reconciled. The deletion of salary/wages disallowance u/s 37 was also confirmed, as the assessee provided sufficient documentation of bank transfers and PF/ESI compliance. For the u/s 14A disallowance, the Tribunal confirmed its deletion, noting no exempt income was earned or claimed by the assessee, consistent with judicial precedents.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider the assessee's submissions and that the penalty notice was invalid as it lacked specific allegations of misrepresentation or suppression as required by Section 270A(9). Furthermore, Form 26AS was subsequently rectified, eliminating the alleged discrepancy. Relying on the principle that all circumstances must be considered for penalty, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of uncorroborated evidence like loose slips or WhatsApp messages without independent corroborative evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions was upheld.
The Tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s order, finding a procedural error as the CIT(A) decided the appeal without addressing the assessee's application for additional evidence under Rule 46A. The matter was restored to the first appellate authority to first decide the application for additional evidence and then adjudicate the appeals on their merits, including the penalty appeal.
Given that the underlying quantum additions were deleted in a previous order, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable and must also be deleted. The tribunal consequently allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not imposable on transfer pricing adjustments if the assessee proves that the price was computed in accordance with Section 92C in good faith and with due diligence. The assessee's method and comparables were accepted as bona fide and exercised with due diligence.