Loading ITAT cases…
387 orders · Page 8 of 8
The ld. Departmental Representative raised no objection to the withdrawal request. Consequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal observed that since the quantum additions, from which the penalties originated, were deleted because the assessment orders themselves were declared illegal and bad in law by a Coordinate Bench, the concealment penalties under section 271(1)(c) cannot survive. Therefore, the penalties for both assessment years were cancelled.
The Tribunal found that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were indeed sent to a wrong email ID and were consequently never served on the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to issue fresh notices to the correct address mentioned in Form No. 35 and ensure a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal, relying on multiple coordinate bench decisions, held that Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, which prescribes filing Form No. 67, is directory and not mandatory. It clarified that delay in furnishing Form No. 67 does not debar the claim of FTC, especially since the Act (Sections 90/91) does not specify a timeline, and the form was filed before the completion of assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant FTC after factual verification.
The Tribunal, relying on precedents, held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person is void ab initio and not sustainable in law. Consequently, a revisional order passed under Section 263 against such a non-existent assessment order is without legal sanction and impermissible.
The Tribunal observed that since the quantum additions, from which the penalties originated, were deleted because the assessment orders themselves were declared illegal and bad in law by a Coordinate Bench, the concealment penalties under section 271(1)(c) cannot survive. Therefore, the penalties for both assessment years were cancelled.
The Tribunal found no basis for either the 50% or 20% disallowance rates. Considering the assessee's construction business, the Tribunal held that a disallowance of 5% of purchases and administrative expenses would meet the ends of justice. The AO was directed to implement this revised disallowance.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration, no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was warranted in the first place. The mere acceptance of the disallowance by the assessee due to a tax-neutral position does not alter this fact. Thus, the First Appellate Authority was justified in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the 'rights to collect toll' do not qualify as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, depreciation on such rights is not allowable.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of late deposit of employees' PF/ESI contributions as the appellant did not press this ground. For the 80IA deduction, relying on multiple High Court decisions and a Co-ordinate Bench ruling, the Tribunal held that filing Form No.10CCB by the due date u/s 139(1) is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the deduction claimed u/s 80IA was allowed, setting aside the JCIT(A)'s order on this point.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of cash deposits is a question of fact requiring appraisal of documents and explanations, and mere deposits do not necessarily amount to chargeable income. It found merit in the assessee's argument that statutory obligations for advance tax under Section 249(4)(b) may not arise when the income prior to addition is 'N.A.' and additions are highly debatable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication on merits.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Act. The tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that the First Appellate order was irregular and defective because it lacked a DIN. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.
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 Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case clarified this position.
The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to ESI & PF must be deposited on or before the statutory due dates under the respective Acts to be eligible for deduction. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was followed, stating that Section 43B does not override this requirement.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the mandatory notice under Section 148 was not properly served on the assessee, either by post or electronically, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law because it went beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, included issues for which no show cause notice was issued, and violated principles of natural justice. The AO had already examined the issues raised.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 40(a)(i) were unwarranted. Payments made for services utilized outside India for earning income outside India, falling under the exclusionary provisions of Section 9(1)(vii)(b), are not subject to TDS.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 40(a)(i) were unwarranted. Payments made for services utilized outside India for earning income outside India, falling under the exclusionary provisions of Section 9(1)(vii)(b), are not subject to TDS.
The Tribunal, relying on its own previous orders in the assessee's case and precedents including CIT vs. MOL Corporation (Delhi High Court) and Amazon Web Services, Inc. vs. ACIT, held that subscription receipts from Cloud Services are not taxable as royalty income in India. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made and to grant the correct TDS credit after due verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had broadly established the bona fides of the lenders as required by Section 68, citing confirmations, bank statements, and the repayment of loans. It held that the mere non-production of Income Tax Returns for two parties (which were otherwise available with the department) did not warrant an adverse inference. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the approval under Section 153D was granted with due application of mind and that the assessment proceedings were conducted in accordance with CBDT guidelines.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities failed to rebut the assessee's explanation that the cash came from maturity of term deposits and prior cash withdrawals. Observing the bank statements, the Tribunal found sufficient cash withdrawals to prove the cash was in the assessee's hands and that the department presented no evidence of its utilization elsewhere. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the approval under Section 153D was granted with due application of mind and that the assessment proceedings were conducted in accordance with CBDT guidelines.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to procedural defects reported by the Registry, specifically that the "Respondent name [was] wrongly filed" and the "Appeal not signed by assessee," which the assessee failed to remove. However, the Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to re-approach after rectifying these defects.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) read with Section 145B(1) of the Income Tax Act, following recent High Court decisions. The claim of exemption under Section 10(37) was dismissed as it pertains to compensation, not interest.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's original 12AA registration was valid for AY 2021-22 and its 12AB application was timely. It ruled that the non-inclusion of 12AB details (obtained post-filing) and belated filing of Form 10B were procedural and not fatal to the substantive claim for exemption u/s 11, citing judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of excess stock was unsustainable. It found that the AO had misinterpreted the accounting system for finished goods and relied solely on statements without corroborative evidence of unaccounted sales.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It remitted the entire issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing the AO to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that for justice to be served, all material and documents must be considered, and the assessee must be afforded a proper opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with directions to decide afresh after verifying all relevant materials and providing the assessee an effective and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh decision. This was done to serve natural justice and allow the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, with the grounds of appeal being allowed for statistical purposes.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present e-filed appeal had become infructuous because the subject matter was already decided through the physical appeal. The ld. DR for the Revenue concurred with this submission. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the e-filed appeal as infructuous, noting that the assessee's appeal had already been adjudicated.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and that the appeal was dismissed ex parte without considering the merits. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Departmental Representative's lack of objection. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn.