Loading ITAT cases…
386 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal held that payments received for offshore supply of design and engineering, when part of composite contracts for plant and equipment supply, are not taxable as FTS if the plant and equipment supply is not taxable. Reimbursement of costs without markup is also not taxable as FTS.
The tribunal held that since the grounds taken in the appeals were duly covered by the APA order, the appeals would no longer require adjudication. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision, held that a time gap between cash withdrawal and deposit should not lead to rejection of the explanation, especially considering the assessee's wife represented the case after the assessee's demise. The additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to substantiate its claim of erroneous calculations in the M.B. Shah report or to refute the findings of under-invoicing. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were found to have no substance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of rental expenses of Rs.1,61,11,333/- and consultancy expenses of Rs.6,20,26,100/- by the DRP and AO were not justified, as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence that was erroneously ignored. The Tribunal concluded that no disallowance was called for and the directions of the DRP could not be sustained.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to implement the DRP's directions in the final assessment order by not establishing the assessee's specific involvement in the alleged share price manipulation or discussing the relevant provisions of the IT Act/DTAA. Consequently, the issue of disallowance of long-term capital loss was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's denial of carry forward of long-term capital loss without a show cause notice and without assigning reasons was 'out-rightly perfunctory, illegal and without jurisdiction,' violating the principles of natural justice and the provisos to Section 143(1)(a). It further ruled that the First Appellate Authority lacked the power to remand the case back to the CPC/AO under Sections 250 and 251. As the assessee had filed the return within the due date and no adverse observations regarding the genuineness of the loss were made, the claim for carry forward of long-term capital loss must be allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided ample details to the AO, and the PCIT erred by not conducting her own minimal inquiries or verification before concluding that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial. Citing High Court precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT cannot simply remand a case without first undertaking a basic inquiry. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed sought an adjournment for the Section 142(1) notice and later made the submissions, which were considered by the ld AO during assessment. Given the timely request for adjournment and subsequent compliance, the Tribunal concluded there was no justification for imposing the penalty.
The Tribunal observed that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024, dated 25/04/2024, specifically extended the time period for trusts to file fresh Form 10AB applications until 30.06.2024, especially when previous applications were rejected solely due to late filing. Given this extension, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) and directed them to pass a fresh speaking order.
The Tribunal held that while Section 14 of the IBC prohibits proceedings *against* the corporate debtor, the appeals were filed by the assessee. However, upon initiation of insolvency, the original directors become functus officio, and only the Interim Resolution Professional or Resolution Professional, in consultation with the Committee of Creditors, can pursue such appeals. The appeals were dismissed with liberty for the IRP/RP to seek recall and fresh hearing on merits.
The Tribunal sustained the CIT(A)'s decision, finding inconsistencies in the assessee's justification for the cash. It noted the assessee's history of not filing returns in previous years and the lack of substance in her claims, concluding that the father-in-law did not have sufficient cash balance to gift the disputed Rs. 10 lakhs. Thus, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s conclusion.
The Tribunal held that while Section 14 of the IBC prohibits proceedings *against* the corporate debtor, the appeals were filed by the assessee. However, upon initiation of insolvency, the original directors become functus officio, and only the Interim Resolution Professional or Resolution Professional, in consultation with the Committee of Creditors, can pursue such appeals. The appeals were dismissed with liberty for the IRP/RP to seek recall and fresh hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that payments received for offshore supply of design and engineering, when part of composite contracts for plant and equipment supply, are not taxable as FTS if the plant and equipment supply is not taxable. Reimbursement of costs without markup is also not taxable as FTS.
The Tribunal held that the disallowed income components were intrinsically linked to the assessee's main business activity and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IC. For the second assessment year, the Tribunal found that an enhancement of income was made without issuing a show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate a crucial legal ground raised by the assessee concerning the validity of the assessment order passed against a company that had been struck off the Registrar of Companies. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds raised.
The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were void ab initio. It observed that the Assessing Officer resorted to Section 148 only after the time limit for assessment under Section 153C (which was initially considered for the assessee's brother based on the same search) had expired. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Builwell Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal ruled that assessments based on incriminating material found during a search must be conducted under the search assessment provisions (Sections 153A/153C), and not Section 148, especially when the time limit for 153C has elapsed.
The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were void ab initio. It observed that the Assessing Officer resorted to Section 148 only after the time limit for assessment under Section 153C (which was initially considered for the assessee's brother based on the same search) had expired. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Builwell Pvt. Ltd., the tribunal ruled that assessments based on incriminating material found during a search must be conducted under the search assessment provisions (Sections 153A/153C), and not Section 148, especially when the time limit for 153C has elapsed.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory, and delay in filing does not lead to disallowance of FTC. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override the Act and Rules, and procedural lapses should not defeat a taxpayer's vested right.
The Tribunal, relying on its previous orders and a Delhi High Court decision in the assessee's own case, held that the background screening services do not constitute 'Royalty' or 'FTS'. These services involve mere verification of factual data and do not transfer copyright, commercial experience, technical knowledge, skill, or expertise, thus no addition on account of 'Royalty' or 'FTS' is warranted.
The Tribunal held that offshore supply of design and engineering, being part of composite contracts for plant and equipment supply, is not taxable as FTS in India. Reimbursement of costs without markup is also not taxable as FTS.
The Tribunal held that the disallowed income components were intrinsically linked to the assessee's main business activity and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80IC. For the second assessment year, the Tribunal found that an enhancement of income was made without issuing a show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice.
The First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) deleted the addition after the assessee provided confirmations, PANs, ITR acknowledgements, and bank statements for 10 out of 11 suppliers, including those who had initially denied sales or were untraceable. For the one deceased supplier, a death certificate was provided. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the genuineness of the transactions rightly accepted.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to controvert the evidence that the assessee's brother, Sh. Vikas Kansal, had already surrendered income, including the peak balance of the disputed bank accounts, during a Section 133A survey and paid tax. Given that the income had already been subjected to tax in the hands of Sh. Vikas Kansal and also the assessee through DTVSVS, allowing the revenue's appeal would result in double taxation and unjust enrichment. Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence regarding the cash book for the cash addition and remanded the issue for fresh adjudication. For the property investment, the Tribunal found that the transaction fell outside the relevant assessment year and lacked evidence of actual investment, thus allowing the appeal on this ground. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal on the jewellery addition, considering the explanation of remaking and remodeling as sufficient for the negligible difference.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), relying on a Supreme Court precedent, ruled that mere disallowances or inadvertent higher claims, without proof of malafide intention or benefit derived by the assessee, do not automatically lead to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found no evidence of inaccurate particulars being furnished with malafide intent.
The Tribunal held that the facts were identical to the assessee's own case for the previous assessment year and were squarely covered by the Supreme Court's ruling. It found that the Assessing Officer had wrongly interpreted the agreement clauses, concluding that the transaction involved the transfer of a copyrighted article, not copyright, and thus was not taxable as royalty.
The Tribunal observed that the non-disclosure was indeed a bona fide mistake by the accountant and not connected with any unexplained income, as the assessee had consistently explained. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the sale of goods and transfer of title occurred outside India, making the receipts from offshore supplies not taxable in India. The Tribunal also found the Assessing Officer's bifurcation of receipts as irrational and without basis.
The Tribunal held that if a DTAA does not specifically tax FTS, and the services are part of the assessee's business activities, such income should be treated as business income. Since the assessee had no Permanent Establishment in India, the income is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was indeed below Rs. 50 lakhs. In light of CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019, and its clarification dated 20th August, 2019, which raised monetary limits for appeals and applied to pending cases, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable and therefore dismissed it.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed sought an adjournment for the Section 142(1) notice and later made the submissions, which were considered by the ld AO during assessment. Given the timely request for adjournment and subsequent compliance, the Tribunal concluded there was no justification for imposing the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to substantiate its claim of erroneous calculations in the M.B. Shah report or to refute the findings of under-invoicing. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were found to have no substance.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed sought an adjournment for the Section 142(1) notice and later made the submissions, which were considered by the ld AO during assessment. Given the timely request for adjournment and subsequent compliance, the Tribunal concluded there was no justification for imposing the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that new apostilled documents and evidence, not considered earlier, were now available. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to consider these fresh documents and conduct the assessment proceedings de novo, allowing both parties to present their case and conduct further investigations.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed sought an adjournment for the Section 142(1) notice and later made the submissions, which were considered by the ld AO during assessment. Given the timely request for adjournment and subsequent compliance, the Tribunal concluded there was no justification for imposing the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the fees received for live transmission of cricket matches cannot be taxed as royalty under the DTAA, following a coordinate bench decision. It also found that the payments under the commercial partnership agreement were for advertising and promotion, not for exclusive use of intellectual property, and thus not royalty.
The Tribunal held that the date of acquisition of the property should be reckoned from the initial booking/allotment date, not the date of possession or subsequent agreements. Therefore, the capital gains arising from the sale of the properties should be treated as long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal noted the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and found extenuating circumstances, particularly questioning the jurisdiction under Section 153C for A.Y. 2014-15 due to the timing of the "satisfaction note" as per a Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was cancelled.
The Tribunal found the AO was not justified in rejecting the books without proper verification and remanded the issues of rejection of books, estimation of profit, and addition under Section 41(1) back to the AO for fresh adjudication. Other grounds related to disallowances already deleted by the CIT(A) were rejected as not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the assessee's continued legal existence and the revival or ongoing dispute of creditors' claims meant the application of Section 41(1) by the AO was premature. It concluded that the AO was in error to allege closure of business, and thus, the additions were not justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed sought an adjournment for the Section 142(1) notice and later made the submissions, which were considered by the ld AO during assessment. Given the timely request for adjournment and subsequent compliance, the Tribunal concluded there was no justification for imposing the penalty.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed sought an adjournment for the Section 142(1) notice and later made the submissions, which were considered by the ld AO during assessment. Given the timely request for adjournment and subsequent compliance, the Tribunal concluded there was no justification for imposing the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB was defective as it did not specify the exact charges against the assessee. A valid notice is a vital ingredient for a penalty order.
The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision, held that a time gap between cash withdrawal and deposit should not lead to rejection of the explanation, especially considering the assessee's wife represented the case after the assessee's demise. The additions were deleted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the issue was already decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the assessee's own case, rendering it 'res integra'. The Tribunal considered the Revenue's appeal vexatious as it presented no new facts or legal questions to justify revisiting the settled matter and subsequently dismissed the appeal.
The tribunal held that since the grounds taken in the appeals were duly covered by the APA order, the appeals would no longer require adjudication. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (Accountant's certificate) and set aside the impugned assessment order. The matter was restored to the AO, who was directed to reconsider the issue by taking into account the Accountant's report under the first proviso to Section 201(1) and by affording the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing, in line with the principle of consistency.