Loading ITAT cases…
420 orders · Page 5 of 9
The Tribunal held that the sale deed executed in 2009 was the operative document for transfer of ownership, not the earlier collaboration agreement. Deductions under Sections 54B and 54F were denied as the assessees failed to discharge their onus.
The Tribunal held that the sale deed executed in 2009 was the operative document for transfer of ownership, not the earlier collaboration agreement. Deductions under Sections 54B and 54F were denied as the assessees failed to discharge their onus.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merit considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, despite the assessee's non-appearance. Recognizing the significant additions made by the AO, the ITAT decided that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted another opportunity. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive for the assessee to cooperate and the CIT(A) to provide a proper hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to re-examine all furnished documents and pass appropriate orders after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the income from the sale of the shop was not "derived from" the business of "building, owning and operating a multiplex theatre" because the assessee lost ownership and operating power over the shop upon sale. Consequently, this income must be assessed as Short-Term Capital Gains under section 50, not as business income eligible for section 80IB(7A) deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, referencing the Special Bench decision in *DCIT vs. Total Oil India (P) Ltd*. It was held that dividend declared by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder is taxed at the rate prescribed under Section 115-O, not the beneficial DTAA rates, unless the DTAA explicitly extends protection to the domestic company for paying DDT. Since no such protection was demonstrated, the DTAA benefit was deemed unavailable to the assessee-company, and thus, the provisions for refund under Section 237 were not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, referencing the Special Bench decision in *DCIT vs. Total Oil India (P) Ltd*. It was held that dividend declared by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder is taxed at the rate prescribed under Section 115-O, not the beneficial DTAA rates, unless the DTAA explicitly extends protection to the domestic company for paying DDT. Since no such protection was demonstrated, the DTAA benefit was deemed unavailable to the assessee-company, and thus, the provisions for refund under Section 237 were not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, referencing the Special Bench decision in *DCIT vs. Total Oil India (P) Ltd*. It was held that dividend declared by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder is taxed at the rate prescribed under Section 115-O, not the beneficial DTAA rates, unless the DTAA explicitly extends protection to the domestic company for paying DDT. Since no such protection was demonstrated, the DTAA benefit was deemed unavailable to the assessee-company, and thus, the provisions for refund under Section 237 were not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, referencing the Special Bench decision in *DCIT vs. Total Oil India (P) Ltd*. It was held that dividend declared by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder is taxed at the rate prescribed under Section 115-O, not the beneficial DTAA rates, unless the DTAA explicitly extends protection to the domestic company for paying DDT. Since no such protection was demonstrated, the DTAA benefit was deemed unavailable to the assessee-company, and thus, the provisions for refund under Section 237 were not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, referencing the Special Bench decision in *DCIT vs. Total Oil India (P) Ltd*. It was held that dividend declared by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder is taxed at the rate prescribed under Section 115-O, not the beneficial DTAA rates, unless the DTAA explicitly extends protection to the domestic company for paying DDT. Since no such protection was demonstrated, the DTAA benefit was deemed unavailable to the assessee-company, and thus, the provisions for refund under Section 237 were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not properly represented before the Assessing Officer or the First Appellate Authority, thereby denying a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the issue of cash deposits and credit entries in the bank account was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to provide supporting evidence.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that Form 26AS was not available for Assessment Year 2008-09. It directed the Assessing Officer to examine and allow the assessee's claim for TDS credit if it can be substantiated through other authentic evidence, including TDS certificates, without insisting on Form 26AS. The Assessing Officer must provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before deciding the issue.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, referencing the Special Bench decision in *DCIT vs. Total Oil India (P) Ltd*. It was held that dividend declared by a domestic company to a non-resident shareholder is taxed at the rate prescribed under Section 115-O, not the beneficial DTAA rates, unless the DTAA explicitly extends protection to the domestic company for paying DDT. Since no such protection was demonstrated, the DTAA benefit was deemed unavailable to the assessee-company, and thus, the provisions for refund under Section 237 were not applicable.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. Since the DR for the Revenue also did not object to a remand, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden by establishing the commercial rationale for its existence as an investment fund and that the Revenue lacked evidence to rebut the presumption of genuineness of its business activities. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not a conduit and its business model was aimed at attracting foreign investment.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee had complied with the spirit of Section 12A(1)(ba) by obtaining the audit report by the due date and filing the ROI on time. The delay in actual submission of the report, attributed to counsel's error, did not prejudice the revenue or invalidate the trust's activities. The Tribunal held that making the report available upon demand is sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee had complied with the spirit of Section 12A(1)(ba) by obtaining the audit report by the due date and filing the ROI on time. The delay in actual submission of the report, attributed to counsel's error, did not prejudice the revenue or invalidate the trust's activities. The Tribunal held that making the report available upon demand is sufficient compliance.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer was void ab initio as it failed to clearly specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was levied (i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Relying on precedents from the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.
The tribunal, following its own precedent in the assessee's case for an earlier assessment year, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The tribunal observed an inherent error in the assessment proceedings due to the dispute regarding the actual identity of the bank account holder, directing the AO to pass a fresh order after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was justified based on information received, the AO failed to conduct proper investigations into the genuineness of the transactions with the assessee. The addition made under Section 68 was set aside due to a lack of specific findings on the assessee's transactions.
The Tribunal observed that the additions were made on a protective basis, and that substantive additions in the connected case of Late Naveen Madan had already been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Relying on a previous coordinate bench order in Naveen Madan's case, which highlighted the denial of proper opportunity to the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after providing a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal, relying on a co-ordinate bench decision in the niece's case and the Supreme Court judgment in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd., determined that the primary transaction was a gift deed dated 15.04.2009. It held that other documents like a Will, Power of Attorney, or subsequent transfer deed were executed for precautionary measures and did not alter the nature of the transaction as a gift. Since the gift transaction completed before 01.10.2009, Section 56(2)(vii)(b) (introduced by Finance Act, 2010, effective from 01.10.2009) was wrongly applied retrospectively. Consequently, the addition made on account of Long Term Capital Gain was erroneous and deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee transferred rights and interests, not shares directly, and the situs of this capital asset was in the USA, making the gains not taxable in India. However, since the assessee voluntarily offered the gains as taxable long-term capital gains in India as per a termination agreement, the Assessing Officer was directed to accept the capital gain offered in the return.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that an appeal against an intimation under Section 143(1) is not maintainable once a final assessment order under Section 143(3) has been passed, as the 143(1) intimation merges with the 143(3) order and loses independent force. The Tribunal also agreed that the assessee failed to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for the 135-day delay in filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to raise issues arising from the 143(1) intimation in the appeal against the 143(3) assessment order before the CIT(A), if such an appeal exists.
The Tribunal, without delving into the merits, remitted the case back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision. It directed the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a meaningful opportunity to submit all necessary documents and evidence, with the expectation that the assessee would fully cooperate.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, recognizing that it directly addressed the CIT(A)'s reason for disallowing the contract loss. The issue of the provision for contract loss was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to verify the new evidence and allow the claim if found compliant with the law.
The Tribunal, without delving into the merits, remitted the case back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision. It directed the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a meaningful opportunity to submit all necessary documents and evidence, with the expectation that the assessee would fully cooperate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and explanations to substantiate its claims for all the disputed amounts.
The Tribunal held that the cause title should be corrected to distinguish between two sets of ITA numbers and assessment years, involving different respondents and, for the latter set, a different appellant PAN. Specifically, ITA Nos. 1842 to 1844/Del/2021 are against M/s. NV International Pvt. Ltd., while ITA Nos. 1845 & 1846/Del/2021 are against M/s. NV Holding (India) Pvt. Ltd. with a different appellant PAN.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on government funds belongs to the government and is not taxable in the assessee's hands. It also ruled that TDS credit is allowable for consultancy receipts even if there's a timing difference between accrual and TDS reflection.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on government funds belongs to the government and is not taxable in the assessee's hands. It also ruled that TDS credit is allowable for consultancy receipts even if there's a timing difference between accrual and TDS reflection.
The Tribunal held that the cause title should be corrected to distinguish between two sets of ITA numbers and assessment years, involving different respondents and, for the latter set, a different appellant PAN. Specifically, ITA Nos. 1842 to 1844/Del/2021 are against M/s. NV International Pvt. Ltd., while ITA Nos. 1845 & 1846/Del/2021 are against M/s. NV Holding (India) Pvt. Ltd. with a different appellant PAN.
The Tribunal held that the cause title should be corrected to distinguish between two sets of ITA numbers and assessment years, involving different respondents and, for the latter set, a different appellant PAN. Specifically, ITA Nos. 1842 to 1844/Del/2021 are against M/s. NV International Pvt. Ltd., while ITA Nos. 1845 & 1846/Del/2021 are against M/s. NV Holding (India) Pvt. Ltd. with a different appellant PAN.
The Tribunal found the assessee's claim cogent, stating that the benefit of Section 115BAB should not be denied solely because Form 10ID was filed with a revised return under Section 139(5) within permissible time, rather than with the original return under Section 139(1). However, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer to factually verify the submissions and decide the appeal accordingly.
The Tribunal observed that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on an inquiry during assessment proceedings and verification of financial statements, not on any incriminating material found during the search. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that no additions can be made in unabated assessments under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. Therefore, the additions under Section 68 and Section 14A could not survive, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete them.
The Tribunal observed that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on an inquiry during assessment proceedings and verification of financial statements, not on any incriminating material found during the search. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that no additions can be made in unabated assessments under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. Therefore, the additions under Section 68 and Section 14A could not survive, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete them.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was an omnibus notice, which did not specify the specific charge against the assessee. Relying on judgments from the Bombay High Court and Karnataka High Court, it was concluded that a penalty levied based on a defective or omnibus notice, where the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) is not indicated, is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the nature and source of credit from the sale of shares through a registered broker were clearly established, making Section 68 inapplicable. It also noted that the revenue had accepted similar gains as business income from the same company shares for the assessee in AY 2015-16. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the income in accordance with the assessee's revised computation, treating the gains as business income.
The Tribunal held that the cause title should be corrected to distinguish between two sets of ITA numbers and assessment years, involving different respondents and, for the latter set, a different appellant PAN. Specifically, ITA Nos. 1842 to 1844/Del/2021 are against M/s. NV International Pvt. Ltd., while ITA Nos. 1845 & 1846/Del/2021 are against M/s. NV Holding (India) Pvt. Ltd. with a different appellant PAN.
The Tribunal held that the cause title should be corrected to distinguish between two sets of ITA numbers and assessment years, involving different respondents and, for the latter set, a different appellant PAN. Specifically, ITA Nos. 1842 to 1844/Del/2021 are against M/s. NV International Pvt. Ltd., while ITA Nos. 1845 & 1846/Del/2021 are against M/s. NV Holding (India) Pvt. Ltd. with a different appellant PAN.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision proceedings were invalid because they were initiated based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Joint Commissioner, violating Section 263(1) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries during the assessment, contrary to the PCIT's assertion.
The tribunal held that the foreign exchange fluctuation loss on the sale of shares was a capital transaction and therefore not an allowable deduction under normal provisions of the Act. However, for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JB, the tribunal ruled that the said loss could not be added back as it did not fall under any of the specific clauses of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2), relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present her case before the Ld. CIT(A). With no objection from the Respondent's counsel, the Tribunal remitted all disputed issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the matters afresh after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal, after hearing both parties and noting the best judgment assessment, decided to restore all three appeals to the file of the Ld. AO for *de novo* adjudication. It directed that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with the law.
The tribunal, after hearing both parties and noting the best judgment assessment, decided to restore all three appeals to the file of the Ld. AO for *de novo* adjudication. It directed that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with the law.
The tribunal, after hearing both parties and noting the best judgment assessment, decided to restore all three appeals to the file of the Ld. AO for *de novo* adjudication. It directed that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with the law.
The tribunal ruled that the expenditure incurred to make an unfinished property habitable is an integral part of the cost of acquisition and thus eligible for deduction under Section 54. It noted that the CIT(A) incorrectly distinguished an earlier ITAT judgment, which supported the assessee's position on such two-part agreements (raw property and finishing work). Consequently, the tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders, allowing the assessee's appeal.
The ITAT condoned a 67-day delay in filing the appeal and, noting that the assessee was not properly represented before the CIT(A), remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, and the assessee is to cooperate.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wrongly declared commission and professional income under Section 44AD and that financial statements filed before the Assessing Officer were not considered. Both parties agreed to remit the matter. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing that proper opportunity be given to the assessee to present their case and for the AO to consider the submitted financial statements.