Loading ITAT cases…
387 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that once TDS is deducted and paid in a subsequent year, no demand under section 201(1) can be raised. Interest under section 201(1A) is chargeable only up to the date of actual deduction and payment. Furthermore, TDS provisions are not applicable where the deductee is unknown or the transactions giving rise to the provision are reversed or cancelled. The AO was directed to verify the facts and calculate interest accordingly.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal without considering vital documents like cash flow statements, purchase bills, ledgers, and VAT returns submitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings. To uphold natural justice and allow for proper verification of the claim, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after affording adequate opportunity of hearing and considering all documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the initial notice dated 28th March 2014 was issued to a wrong address and not validly served. The subsequent notice dated 8th July 2014, which was validly served, was beyond the six-year limitation period, thus rendering the reopening proceedings under Sections 147/148 invalid and quashed. On merits, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the income had already been offered to tax at a 3% net profit rate in a consolidated manner in AY 2011-12, and therefore, the additions sustained by the first appellate authority were deleted. Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, noting the assessee's persistent non-cooperation and failure to produce any documentary evidence regarding the property's cost or actual sale consideration. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the application of Section 50C based on the stamp duty valuation.
The Tribunal found that the initial notice dated 28th March 2014 was issued to a wrong address and not validly served. The subsequent notice dated 8th July 2014, which was validly served, was beyond the six-year limitation period, thus rendering the reopening proceedings under Sections 147/148 invalid and quashed. On merits, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the income had already been offered to tax at a 3% net profit rate in a consolidated manner in AY 2011-12, and therefore, the additions sustained by the first appellate authority were deleted. Consequently, penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) were also deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that once TDS is deducted and paid in a subsequent year, no demand under section 201(1) can be raised. Interest under section 201(1A) is chargeable only up to the date of actual deduction and payment. Furthermore, TDS provisions are not applicable where the deductee is unknown or the transactions giving rise to the provision are reversed or cancelled. The AO was directed to verify the facts and calculate interest accordingly.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the deletion of the Rs.2,90,00,000/- addition. It noted that the assessee had furnished sale deeds for property purchase and disclosed the income, which the AO had accepted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, as the AO failed to establish the addition from undisclosed sources.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the interest disallowance, noting it was related to TDS. For the share valuation, the tribunal ruled that since the shares were issued at a premium lower than the fair market value determined by the AO, section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable. Both grounds of appeal by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merit and had proceeded ex-parte without taking cognizance of the assessee's adjournment request. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the addition on account of unaccounted sales and off-book turnover was not adequately substantiated and required reconsideration. The issue of share capital was also remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, noting the identical facts and following its previous orders, restored the issue for the AY 2015-16 back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, particularly concerning the substantiation of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors.
The Tribunal observed no abnormality in the cash deposits, noting that the CIT(A) had previously found significant pre- and post-demonetization deposits to be sales consideration. Relying on the precedent set in *Ramesh Kochar*, the Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs.14,93,000/- under section 69A was unjustified and accordingly deleted it.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that there was no under-reporting of income as the income assessed under Section 143(3) was the same as the income determined under Section 143(1)(a). Therefore, no penalty under Section 270A was leviable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on the merits of the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the addition on account of unaccounted sales and off-book turnover was not adequately substantiated and required reconsideration. The issue of share capital was also remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that even without registration under section 12AA or notification under section 10(23C), the assessee's income should be assessed under the head 'Income from Other Sources' (Section 56). Legitimate revenue and capital expenditures incurred exclusively to earn this income, including depreciation, must be allowed under Section 57. The matter is remanded to the AO to allow these expenses and deductions against the taxable receipts.
The Tribunal condoned the 103-day delay, acknowledging the bona fide reasons. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without adequate opportunity and not admitting additional evidence. Consequently, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, directing him to provide the assessee with a proper hearing and opportunity to furnish supporting documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Coral Hub Ltd. and Cosmic Global Ltd. from the comparables, relying on previous ITAT rulings. The Tribunal also upheld the exclusion of E-Clerx Services and ICRA Online, agreeing that they provided high-end KPO services dissimilar to the assessee's business.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for small-time investors. The AO should have accepted the investments made by these investors, especially when share application forms and receipts were filed.
The Tribunal noted that the DSIR's partial disallowance was communicated after the assessee's initial claim and during assessment proceedings. Given that the CIT(A) himself observed the assessee's error was bonafide and without malafide intent, and referencing similar cases of sister concerns, the Tribunal found the penalty unjustified and ordered its deletion.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for small-time investors. The AO should have accepted the investments made by these investors, especially when share application forms and receipts were filed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Considering the subsequent relief granted by the NFAC, the Tribunal determined that the present appeal had become infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the services provided were routine support services and did not meet the 'make available' test, meaning the Indian affiliate was not enabled to use the technical knowledge independently in the future. Therefore, the receipts were not taxable as FTS.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-appearance to be genuine and, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-adjudicate the issue afresh after granting the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and considering any evidence submitted, with the caveat that non-cooperation from the assessee would allow the AO to proceed according to law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Coral Hub Ltd. and Cosmic Global Ltd. from the comparables, relying on previous ITAT rulings. The Tribunal also upheld the exclusion of E-Clerx Services and ICRA Online, agreeing that they provided high-end KPO services dissimilar to the assessee's business.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to admit the appeal as the assessee was not liable to pay advance tax for the year under consideration. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The tribunal condoned the 290-day delay, finding no intentional lapse by the assessee. It accepted the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte due to non-receipt of notices. To prevent injustice, the tribunal quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered did not meet the 'make available' criteria under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. It also noted that payments to individuals for professional services under Article 15 are excluded from FTS under Article 12(5)(e).
The Tribunal found that the TPO's claim of providing multiple opportunities was untrue and that the DRP's directions for verification and a speaking order were not properly followed. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the TPO for fresh implementation of the DRP's directions, instructing the TPO to grant the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order without providing adequate opportunity. Consequently, the appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal held that the reassessment order passed by ITO Ward-2, Bhiwani, was invalid due to lack of a proper order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act for the transfer of jurisdiction from Jalandhar to Bhiwani. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by ITO Ward-2, Bhiwani, was without statutory compliance, rendering the reassessment order bad in law and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 was invalid because the original return filed under Section 139(1) had not been disposed of. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 was invalid because the original return filed under Section 139(1) had not been disposed of. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable if TDS was already deducted at the time of advance payment. However, it restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for factual verification to ensure that TDS was indeed deducted and paid to the Central Government for the impugned sum, and to confirm that the expenses were revenue in nature and relatable to A.Y. 2014-15.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the CIT(A) lacks the power to dismiss an appeal solely on the grounds of non-prosecution. Considering the interest of justice, the tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits, directing that the assessee be provided adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without discussing the merits, which is contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by incorrectly recording that no adjournment requests were made by the assessee for the last two notices, when evidence showed such requests were indeed made. Finding that the assessee was thus denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the appellant.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to ESI & PF must be deposited on or before the statutory due date to be eligible for deduction. The provisions of Section 43B do not provide leeway for late deposit, even if made before the return filing due date.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record sufficient satisfaction to reject the assessee's suo moto disallowance under Section 14A. Regarding Section 80G, the Tribunal found no error in allowing the deduction for donations, as the law only restricts deductions for specific funds under CSR, not all CSR contributions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was rightly imposed as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants, and the High Court had already confirmed the addition. The absence of the assessee's representation further supported the decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions based on conjectures and surmises without independent inquiry, relying solely on information from another department. The Tribunal also found the addition for jewellery unsustainable as it was apportioned without proper identification of ownership.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to present her case or evidence during assessment or appeal proceedings. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notice, preventing them from furnishing the required details. It held that the CIT(E) failed to provide a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a proper hearing and opportunity to submit all necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record sufficient satisfaction to reject the assessee's suo moto disallowance under Section 14A. Regarding Section 80G, the Tribunal found no error in allowing the deduction for donations, as the law only restricts deductions for specific funds under CSR, not all CSR contributions.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte as no one appeared on their behalf. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which had relied on previous Coordinate Bench decisions in the assessee's own case for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09. In those earlier years, exemption under Section 11 was denied due to lack of Section 12A registration, and the issue of cess being income chargeable to tax was decided against the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the challenges in conclusively proving or disproving cash explanations. While deeming the assessee's detailed explanation of the cash sources largely unrealistic, it granted a further benefit of doubt. The Tribunal provided additional partial relief of Rs.25,00,000/- beyond what the CIT(A) had already allowed, thus modifying the First Appellate order.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (passport entries and bank statements) and set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to examine the fresh evidence, provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and decide the issue afresh as per law.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee provided confirmations and evidence of subsequent payments/write-offs. However, it noted that some confirmations were not examined by the AO and the DR raised concerns about Rule 46A and the need for verification of write-backs. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the write-backs and payments, instructing that additions be deleted if balances were repaid or written back and offered for taxation in subsequent years.
The ld. Departmental Representative raised no objection to the withdrawal request. Consequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.