Loading ITAT cases…
175 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the first appellate authority and restored the issues to its file for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity to furnish evidence and make submissions to establish that the income in dispute is from business.
The Tribunal found that the appeals were disposed of ex-parte by the CIT(A) and the orders were non-speaking, confirming additions without adequate reasons. It held that the assessees deserve an opportunity to contest the additions by furnishing supporting evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, directing the assessees to cooperate.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal related to Section 12A as infructuous, as registration was subsequently granted. For the Section 80G appeal, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order rejecting the application for non-compliance, and restored the matter for de-novo adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with all queries.
The Tribunal held that the distribution revenue earned by the assessee cannot be taxed as royalty but as business income. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted, following the assessee's offer of income as business income in terms of the MAP.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal held that in light of the NCLT's moratorium order, all proceedings against the corporate debtor (assessee) are stayed. The Revenue was given liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling the order once the moratorium ends or is reversed by an appellate forum.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to follow the directions of the DRP as per Section 144C(13) of the Act, which is a gross violation of the law. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not take steps to rectify the mistake. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the appeals were disposed of ex-parte by the CIT(A) and the orders were non-speaking, confirming additions without adequate reasons. It held that the assessees deserve an opportunity to contest the additions by furnishing supporting evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, directing the assessees to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the compensation paid to directors was for business expediency due to delays in project commencement. It also found that the compensation paid to CLHPL was in the business interest of the assessee, leading to a better revenue share and consideration for development rights.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to properly consider the assessee's submissions and the explanation of 'business day' as defined under US laws for the 401K plan. It was established that the contribution payments were made within the prescribed 15th business day timeline according to US regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have considered the average of the last five years' net profit and loss ratios, as directed to the assessee, instead of only four years. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for recalculation.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding both issues against the appellant. Regarding the maintainability of the appeal filed by a struck-off company, the Tribunal relied on the coordinate bench decision in Dwarka Portfolio (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2022) 139 taxmann.com 477 (Delhi-Trib.). This decision held that even if a company's name is struck off, its certificate of incorporation cannot be treated as cancelled for realizing amounts due to or discharging liabilities of the company, thus making the appeal maintainable. The Tribunal further referenced its own decision in Zoetic Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, where it was held that preemptive assessments made against companies whose names have been struck off by the Registrar of Companies for statutory defaults are valid and cannot be set aside on jurisdictional defect, especially when a revival application is sub judice. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order passed against the non-existent entity was not void ab initio and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment made under Section 143(3) for AY 2017-18, consequent to a satisfaction note recorded on 26.03.2019, was outside the scope of Section 143(3) and thus void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that no transfer pricing adjustment can be made on account of a domestic transaction after the omission of Section 92BA(i) of the Income Tax Act. The omission of this clause renders the subsequent adjustment void.
The Tribunal held that the assessment made under Section 143(3) for AY 2017-18, consequent to a satisfaction note recorded on 26.03.2019, was outside the scope of Section 143(3) and thus void ab initio.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record any seized material directly linking the additional income declared by the assessee to incriminating evidence found during the search. The tribunal affirmed that for a penalty under Section 271AAB to be levied, the onus is on the AO to prove that the disclosed income is directly linked to incriminating material found during the search, which was not established in this case.
The Tribunal found the assessee's contention regarding the incorrect email ID for notice service to be genuine and uncontroverted. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of agricultural income was genuine, considering his expertise, the consistency of declared income over the years, and the fact that agriculturists are not mandated to maintain books of account under Section 44AA. The Tribunal found no reason to suspect the declared income.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that a notification under section 90(1) of the Income Tax Act is a necessary and mandatory condition for giving effect to a DTAA or any protocol changing its terms or conditions. This decision was in line with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in *Assessing Officer (International Taxation) vs. Nestle SA*. Consequently, the benefit of the MFN clause for a lower dividend tax rate was not applicable without such a notification.
The Tribunal held that no transfer pricing adjustment can be made on account of a domestic transaction after the omission of Section 92BA(i) of the Income Tax Act. The omission of this clause renders the subsequent adjustment void.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was not permissible as the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of material facts during the original scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal noted that the issues raised for reopening were embedded in the original records and could have been discovered with due diligence.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,80,39,139/- related to EDC, finding the assessee's accounting method consistent and approved in prior years. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for non-furnishing of PAN details, stating that mere non-submission does not warrant disallowance under Section 68.
The tribunal found that the approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted for 110 cases in a single day without independent application of mind or perusal of draft assessment orders, rendering it a mechanical exercise. Relying on the Delhi High Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, the tribunal concluded that such an approval was arbitrary, erroneous, and non-est in the eyes of law. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was quashed.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a non-existent company is a nullity and void ab initio, constituting a jurisdictional defect rather than a mere procedural irregularity. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Spice Entertainment Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that once a company ceases to exist due to amalgamation, no valid assessment can be made against it, especially when the revenue authorities were aware of the amalgamation.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. It found that the CIT(A)'s decision was based on detailed submissions and documents provided by the assessee regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders, judicial precedents, and the AO's failure to discharge his duty to verify confirmations under Section 133(6). The ITAT noted that no additional evidence was accepted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the compensation paid to directors was for business expediency due to delays in project commencement. It also found that the compensation paid to CLHPL was in the business interest of the assessee, leading to a better revenue share and consideration for development rights.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance with notices throughout the assessment and appellate stages. However, after reviewing the available records, the Tribunal found no basis to support the lower authorities' orders regarding the additions for Dharmada expenses and notional interest, directing their deletion.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance with notices throughout the assessment and appellate stages. However, after reviewing the available records, the Tribunal found no basis to support the lower authorities' orders regarding the additions for Dharmada expenses and notional interest, directing their deletion.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The valuation report was found to be antedated and prepared without proper application of mind, and the company's negative net worth indicated the shares were not worth the premium.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and taken a plausible view regarding the rent issue, and the CIT(E) could not substitute his opinion. The ITAT also found that the foreign contribution issue was outside the scope of the limited scrutiny for which the case was selected, meaning the AO had no jurisdiction to examine it during the assessment. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order under Section 263 was invalid as the conditions for its invocation were not met.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus under Section 68 by providing documents proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The Tribunal also found that the valuation of shares was done as per the prescribed rules and the enhancement under Section 56(2)(viib) was based on conjecture.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus under Section 68 by providing documents proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The Tribunal also found that the valuation of shares was done as per the prescribed rules and the enhancement under Section 56(2)(viib) was based on conjecture.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), confirming the disallowance of the long-term capital loss claim of Rs. 49,96,412/- and the addition of Rs. 8,95,491/- on account of capital gain. The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to substantiate the year of payment, prove ownership through a conveyance deed, and reconcile discrepancies related to the IT space transfer, thus finding no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an LLC, is considered 'liable to tax' in the US as its income is subject to taxation in the hands of its owner. The Tax Residency Certificate issued by the US IRS further supports its residency status for treaty purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an LLC, is considered 'liable to tax' in the US as its income is subject to taxation in the hands of its owner. The Tax Residency Certificate issued by the US IRS further supports its residency status for treaty purposes.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order u/s 263 only pertained to two specific issues, and thus the CIT(A) erred in declaring the entire appeal against the original assessment as infructuous. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had discharged their onus under Section 68 by providing documents proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The Tribunal also found that the valuation of shares was done as per the prescribed rules and the enhancement under Section 56(2)(viib) was based on conjecture.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to substitute the book value of its investment in the subsidiary with its intrinsic value, supported by a valuation report. The AO and CIT(A) erred in assuming that the book value of assets could not be modified when determining the Net Asset Value (NAV) for share valuation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC). The AO and DRP failed to rebut this evidence with independent inquiry or proof of tax evasion. The Tribunal also noted the DRP did not consider the assessee's detailed submissions regarding its business operations and expenditure in Singapore.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to verify the assessee's claims.
The Tribunal held that any proceedings initiated and order passed against a dead person are a nullity and void ab initio. Since the PCIT passed the order under Section 263 against the deceased assessee without bringing the legal heir on record, the order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a plausible explanation supported by evidence for the cash deposits, which were out of prior cash withdrawals. The Revenue failed to controvert that the withdrawn cash was not available for redeposit.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified because the issue of capital gains determination was highly debatable, as evidenced by the Delhi High Court admitting a substantial question of law. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal noted that penalty cannot be levied when the issue involves a debatable question of law and the assessee has made full disclosures, demonstrating bonafide conduct. Consequently, the impugned penalty order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The ITAT found that both the assessment and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and lacked proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case. It noted that the assessee's bills and vouchers were seized by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, granting the assessee the liberty to produce all relevant documents.
The tribunal found force in the assessee's plea, acknowledging its bona fide belief and the prospective application of the Delhi High Court's judgment (Rajesh Projects (supra)) which clarified the TDS obligation. Since the assessment year (A.Y. 2012-13) preceded the prospective judgment date (16th February 2017), the cause of action for treating the assessee as in default under Sections 201(1)/201(1A) was not available to the Revenue. The tribunal also noted a similar relief granted by a co-ordinate bench in an identical factual matrix, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders for both appeals.
The Tribunal held that the additions made were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A.
The Delhi Bench of the ITAT ruled that it lacked jurisdiction as the assessments were made in Lucknow, making the ITAT Lucknow Bench the appropriate forum. Citing PCIT Vs. ABC Papers Ltd. (447 ITR 01), the Tribunal dismissed all appeals and cross-objections as not maintainable before the Delhi Bench, granting liberty to both parties to file them before the correct jurisdictional Tribunal.
The Delhi Bench of the ITAT ruled that it lacked jurisdiction as the assessments were made in Lucknow, making the ITAT Lucknow Bench the appropriate forum. Citing PCIT Vs. ABC Papers Ltd. (447 ITR 01), the Tribunal dismissed all appeals and cross-objections as not maintainable before the Delhi Bench, granting liberty to both parties to file them before the correct jurisdictional Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the additions made were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A.
The Tribunal held that the additions made were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A.
The Tribunal held that the additions made were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found, the additions were beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A.