Loading ITAT cases…
386 orders · Page 3 of 8
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 Tribunal held that the penalty could not be levied as no incriminating material was found during the search relating to the additional income declared. The disclosure was considered voluntary in the context of the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be levied as no incriminating material was found during the search relating to the additional income declared. The disclosure was considered voluntary in the context of the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) for AY 2015-16 was void ab initio because the assessment year was covered under Section 153A due to the search. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal ruled that stamp duty, transfer fees, and advocate fees are allowable expenses intrinsically linked to the acquisition of the new property. It directed the AO to permit these expenses and re-compute the capital gains for exemption.
The Tribunal found that paying commission to HUFs was a long-standing trade practice, and similar payments in previous years were accepted by the AO under Section 143(3). Considering that payments were made through banking channels, agents responded to Section 133(6) notices, and no change in law or facts justified the disallowance, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte because the assessee, due to a change in counsel and inability to access the e-filing portal, could not represent its case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT held that the Director lacked the authority to file the appeal as the company was already in liquidation and under insolvency resolution, and an Official Liquidator had been appointed. The tribunal noted that the Official Liquidator had already considered the Revenue's demand. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as having been filed without proper authority.
The tribunal held that the addition to the indexed cost of acquisition was unwarranted because the difference between the DVO's valuation and the assessee's valuer's valuation was less than 5%. Regarding the unexplained jewellery, the tribunal found the assessee's explanation valid, noting that the declared value was within the limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916, and criticized the DRP for not providing cogent reasons to treat it as undisclosed. Consequently, both additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that lease rentals paid under a finance lease are eligible for deduction as revenue expenditure. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be levied as no incriminating material was found during the search relating to the additional income declared. The disclosure was considered voluntary in the context of the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was a mere formality without proper application of mind by the approving authority, rendering the assessment order unenforceable. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order on this ground.
The ITAT held that no disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) is to be made if the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, directing the AO to verify this. Regarding Rule 8D(iii), the ITAT directed the AO to compute disallowance only considering investments that yielded exempt income, relying on the Special Bench ITAT decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. The case was remanded to the AO for re-computation based on these directions.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, rendering the appeal non-maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to approach the Tribunal again if the tax effect is found to exceed Rs. 50 lakhs.
The ITAT held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard in the interest of justice. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, emphasizing that the CIT(A) should provide an adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer (DVO) as required by Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act when the assessee objected to the stamp duty valuation. The Tribunal followed precedents that do not allow a second inning for the department to fill lacunae in the assessment.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the DRP with a direction to consider the assessee's objections and pass a fresh order in accordance with Section 144C(5) of the Act.
The tribunal upheld the addition of Rs.14,50,000/- for A.Y. 2013-14, confirming that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the unexplained credits. For A.Y. 2017-18, the tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs.10,75,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(c), finding that the difference between the fair market value and consideration paid for shares was rightly added. Both CIT(A) orders were confirmed due to the lack of assistance from the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the tax authorities had used a wrong email ID for communication, different from the one provided in Form 35, leading to the assessee not receiving the notices. As the merits of the case were not addressed by the lower authorities, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer received information regarding the property purchase from the Registrar, Ghaziabad, which was flagged in Non-PAN AIR information as the property was registered without a PAN number. Despite the assessee intimating that the jurisdiction lay with Circle-21(2), Delhi, the AO proceeded to pass the assessment order without having jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the AO should have transferred the information to the jurisdictional AO for proper verification and assessment. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO without jurisdiction was considered non-est. For the interest of revenue, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's submission that the investment was already recorded and declared in the regularly filed return of income. The jurisdictional AO was directed to conduct this verification after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without properly hearing the assessee and without adjudicating the appeal on its merits. Citing a violation of natural justice, the ITAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for de-novo adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for brokerage charges. It disallowed the cost of improvement, finding the supporting bill unverified. The pre-closure charges were disallowed for capital gains computation but allowed to be considered under 'income from house property'. The set-off of brought forward short-term capital loss was allowed.
The tribunal upheld the addition of Rs.14,50,000/- for A.Y. 2013-14, confirming that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the unexplained credits. For A.Y. 2017-18, the tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs.10,75,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(c), finding that the difference between the fair market value and consideration paid for shares was rightly added. Both CIT(A) orders were confirmed due to the lack of assistance from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was a mere formality without proper application of mind by the approving authority, rendering the assessment order unenforceable. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was a mere formality without proper application of mind by the approving authority, rendering the assessment order unenforceable. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was a mere formality without proper application of mind by the approving authority, rendering the assessment order unenforceable. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order on this ground.
The Tribunal quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to consider the issue afresh, providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and to consider all evidence presented.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB(2) mandates that for computing book profits for MAT, a company's Profit & Loss Account must be prepared in accordance with Schedule III to the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to use the loss declared in the audited Profit & Loss Account prepared under the Companies Act for MAT calculation was correct and upheld.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee do not 'make available' any technical knowledge or skill to the recipient, as the recipient cannot independently apply the technology without the service provider's aid. The receipts from cloud-based services are not taxable as royalty under the India-US DTAA.
The Tribunal found that the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) was issued on the same date as the assessment order (24/12/2019), which is a prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction u/s 143(3) or 148. Therefore, the assessment order was passed without proper jurisdiction and declared void ab-initio.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed its order ex-parte without granting the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and without adjudicating the appeal on its merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for de-novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a fair hearing to the assessee. Ground No. 2 was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and other grounds were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that since the AO made no addition on the specific issue (cash deposit) for which the assessment was reopened under Section 147, the AO's jurisdiction for other additions was ousted. Relying on established case law, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was not erroneous, and therefore, the Pr.CIT could not have validly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The order of the Pr.CIT was set aside, and the Section 263 order was quashed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the specific directions issued by both the DRP and the Hon'ble ITAT in the previous proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the entire matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, ensuring all directions are duly considered and allowing the assessee to furnish any relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E cannot be charged for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, as the machinery provision under Section 200A was not applicable for such levies before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E cannot be charged for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, as the machinery provision under Section 200A was not applicable for such levies before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 143(2) was duly served and there was no justification for the AO to restrict the addition to only 8% of the unexplained creditors. Upholding the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of the addition, made after due notice, required no interference. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that no further opportunity was justified given repeated non-appearance by the assessee and lack of new evidence. Upholding the CIT(A)'s decision, the Tribunal found no error in sustaining the net profit estimation at 8%.
The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E cannot be charged for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, as the machinery provision under Section 200A was not applicable for such levies before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Department Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the AR's medical condition as a reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to file submissions before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication (de novo) to ensure the assessee is given a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's consistent non-prosecution and apparent lack of interest in contesting the appeal, decided the case ex-parte. It found no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from cross-charging for the use of third-party software do not constitute Fee for Included Services (FIS) as the assessee does not 'make available' any technical knowledge or skill to the group companies. Furthermore, the payments were not considered 'Royalty' under the DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E cannot be charged for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, as the machinery provision under Section 200A was not applicable for such levies before that date. Following the principle of favoring the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions, the levy was deemed unsustainable.
The tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the AO under Section 144C(13) was devoid of jurisdiction. Since the DRP rejected the assessee's objections as time-barred and did not provide any directions, the AO was required to pass the final assessment order within the statutory period under Section 144C(4) based on the draft order, which they failed to do. The final order was deemed to be passed in contravention of statutory provisions.
The tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the AO under Section 144C(13) was devoid of jurisdiction. Since the DRP rejected the assessee's objections as time-barred and did not provide any directions, the AO was required to pass the final assessment order within the statutory period under Section 144C(4) based on the draft order, which they failed to do. The final order was deemed to be passed in contravention of statutory provisions.
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument that the discrepancy in stamp paper dates was due to the vendor's purchase date versus the actual sale date, and that this issue goes to the root of the matter. The Tribunal remitted the issue regarding the source of capital contribution and the validity of the partnership deed back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to consider only the average value of investments yielding exempt income for disallowance under Section 14A, as per previous ITAT directions. However, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s specific figure of Rs. 3,01,090 as it lacked basis.
The Tribunal considered the arguments of the Ld. DR and CBDT Circular No. 16/2022, finding no valid reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69C could not be sustained. It was noted that no statements were recorded from the third party (Sh. Ravinder Singh) or the alleged marble supplier to corroborate the photo image or the alleged transaction. The Tribunal concluded that an addition based merely on a photo image from a third person's phone, without cogent corroborative material, cannot be upheld.