Loading ITAT cases…
589 orders · Page 9 of 12
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was defective because it did not specifically indicate whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing various High Court and Coordinate Bench precedents, the Tribunal ruled that such an omnibus and unspecific notice is illegal and not sustainable in law. Therefore, the penalty order passed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the 71-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the procedural lapses and the assessee's contention of not being able to properly present their case before the lower authorities, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the issues afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed on 01.07.2022 was time-barred as the DRP order was uploaded on the ITBA portal on 26.05.2022, meaning the assessment should have been completed by 30.06.2022 as per Section 144C(13) of the Act. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the final assessment order was null and void.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, citing Rule 29 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and precedents emphasizing the importance of providing adequate opportunity for evidence. Consequently, the matters of intra-group service charges and interest on CCDs were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with directions to examine the additional evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was justified (due to sufficient cause as explained in the affidavit) in not furnishing details before the tax authorities, citing ongoing legal issues related to fraud. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, emphasizing that the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 80P deduction could not be made under Section 143(1)(a)(v) processing, as this provision was introduced prospectively from April 1, 2021, and the assessment year in question was prior to that. The Tribunal also noted that the disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) was not applicable in this context.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee three opportunities to present their case. The assessee is made responsible for pleading and proving all relevant facts during the consequential hearing proceedings.
The Tribunal, relying on precedents from the Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court concerning identical facts, held that a system-generated document with a digital signature stating "signature not verified" cannot be considered an official document. Consequently, the assessment order was found to be void-ab-initio and was quashed.
The tribunal found that the AO had made an error by ignoring a decimal, overstating the escaped income from Rs. 12,94,430.28 to Rs. 12,94,43,028. As the correct escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, and the notice under Section 148 for A.Y. 2014-15 was issued on 25.06.2021 (beyond the three-year limitation period from the end of the assessment year), the reassessment proceedings were held to be time-barred and invalid. The tribunal quashed the assumption of jurisdiction for passing the order and did not rule on the merits of the addition or penalty initiation.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of Section 153C proceedings against the assessee was invalid. It reasoned that Section 153C(1)(a) requires physical seizure or requisition of specific articles for establishing 'belongingness' to a third party, and mere ledger entries for cash transactions do not satisfy this legal prerequisite. Consequently, the assessment was quashed as the satisfaction for proceedings was not as per law.
The Tribunal held that the services provided (background screening reports) do not constitute 'royalty' or 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS) as they do not involve the transfer of copyright, technical knowledge, experience, or skill. Citing previous judgments in the assessee's own case and a related Delhi High Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that no addition on account of 'Royalty' was warranted. The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A was dismissed as premature.
The ITAT found that since the CPC had already rectified the assessee's grievance under Section 154, the appeal before the CIT(A) became infructuous. The CIT(A)'s subsequent order, which addressed an issue not originally contested by the assessee (Section 43B), was also rendered infructuous. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer not to give effect to the CIT(A)'s findings and consequently dismissed the present appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that notices to the assessee remained unserved and the CIT(A) had relied on a retracted statement for deleting additions. To ensure justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a fresh order only after ensuring proper service of notice on the assessee.
The Tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the need for natural justice. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard and to consider all evidence, with a directive to pass a reasoned order.
The Tribunal deleted all three penalties, finding no reason to sustain them. It observed that the penalties were levied solely under Section 271(1)(c) and not based on seized material from the search, distinguishing it from Section 271AAB. Citing *CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)*, the Tribunal emphasized that quantum additions do not automatically attract penalties, and parallel proceedings require independent justification.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to non-service of the jurisdictional notice under Section 148 in compliance with Section 282A read with Rule 127. Consequently, the assessment order passed without proper notice was invalid.
The Tribunal held that tax authorities erred by making a disallowance solely based on the tax audit report without considering that the amount in question was not claimed as an expense and did not relate to actual interest payments, thus Section 36(1)(iii) was inapplicable. It concluded that the invocation of Section 36(1)(iii) was unjustified and the CIT(A) incorrectly held that it was not a rectifiable mistake under Section 154, finding it to be a mistake apparent from the assessment record.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A), confirming the deletion of additions related to notional interest income and disallowance under section 14A. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly relied on binding precedents, including ITAT and jurisdictional High Court orders in the assessee's own case. The decision for AY 2009-10 was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2010-11.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A), confirming the deletion of additions related to notional interest income and disallowance under section 14A. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had correctly relied on binding precedents, including ITAT and jurisdictional High Court orders in the assessee's own case. The decision for AY 2009-10 was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2010-11.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is mandatorily required to furnish reasons for reopening upon request and to dispose of the assessee's objections by a speaking order. Failure to adhere to this established procedure, relying on Apex Court and High Court precedents, vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings, rendering them void-ab-initio and bad in law.
The Tribunal found the rejection of the assessee's explanation by lower authorities, solely based on the time gap and demonetization, unacceptable given the assessee's medical condition and supporting evidence. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 9,97,000/- to the assessee's total income was deleted. The Tribunal clarified that this decision should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal determined that the relevant searched assessment year for Section 153C was AY 2016-17. The six assessment years immediately preceding it covered AYs 2010-11 to 2015-16. As the notice under Section 153C was issued for AY 2009-10, which is outside this permissible period, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment proceedings were beyond jurisdiction, aligning with established judicial precedence from the Delhi High Court.
The Tribunal confirmed that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 05/2024. Finding no applicable exceptions, the appeal was dismissed, with liberty granted to the Revenue to revive it if an exception subsequently applies.
The Tribunal held that the repair and maintenance services rendered by the assessee did not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' under the Act or the India-Singapore DTAA. The 'make available' clause was not satisfied as there was no transfer of technology, skill, or knowledge for the clients to perform repairs independently.
The Tribunal held that the repair and maintenance services rendered by the assessee did not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' under the Act or the India-Singapore DTAA. The 'make available' clause was not satisfied as there was no transfer of technology, skill, or knowledge for the clients to perform repairs independently.
The Tribunal found that the additional evidence was crucial to the matter and should be considered. It restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing the AO to admit the additional evidence filed before the NFAC and allow the assessee to furnish further evidence, deciding the issue in accordance with law.
The Tribunal dismissed all three grounds of appeal by the Revenue. It held that the objection regarding additional evidence was misconceived as documents for AY 2015-16 were filed before the AO. The deletion of disallowance for intragroup services was upheld due to factual similarity with previous unchallenged orders. The allowance of TDS credit was confirmed as it conformed to Section 199 and Rule 37BA, with the corresponding income recognized.
The Tribunal held that when incriminating material from a search conducted on a third party is used against a non-searched person, the correct legal recourse is to initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, and not under Section 147. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were declared void ab initio and quashed, following established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal, relying on binding decisions of the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, held that the defective penalty notice, which did not specify the exact charge under Section 271(1)(c), indicated a lack of proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed invalid and directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that when incriminating material from a search conducted on a third party is used against a non-searched person, the correct legal recourse is to initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, and not under Section 147. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were declared void ab initio and quashed, following established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the mark-up on receipt of services should be allowed, referencing the rule of consistency and decisions from co-ordinate benches. The appeal was allowed based on these findings.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the confusion due to the two PANs and the lack of proper consideration of the assessee's explanation, restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication (de novo) after the assessee surrenders one PAN. The AO is directed to re-examine all evidence, provide a hearing opportunity, and allow submission of fresh evidence.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3), clarifying it applies only to revenue expenditure. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute rental income by allowing the 30% standard deduction under Section 24(a). For the unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal reduced the addition from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh, granting relief of Rs. 3 lakh to the assessee.
The Tribunal, relying on CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., held that a reopening is unsustainable when the Assessing Officer makes an addition on an issue not part of the initial reasons recorded, and no addition is made on the original reasons. Consequently, the impugned reassessment proceedings were quashed.
To prevent a miscarriage of justice, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration, directing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was clarified that if the assessee fails to cooperate, the AO can proceed as per law.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It found that the tax effect in the case was below the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 60 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17/09/2024. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable as per the circular, and the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case.
The tribunal held that the assessee's section 54F deduction claim was neither discussed nor rejected in the original assessment order. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the section 54F deduction claim, with the assessee to be given three effective opportunities to plead and prove the claim.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the AO under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation. The assessment was made after the expiry of two years from the financial year in which the TDS statements were filed, rendering it null and void.
The tribunal dismissed the current appeal for statistical purposes, acknowledging that no proceedings can continue due to the NCLT moratorium covering the assessee's case. Liberty was granted for the parties to seek revival of the appeal if the NCLT order is reversed or modified by a higher judicial forum.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the applications based on generic grounds without adequately considering the assessee's documents and explanations. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remitted both applications back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration (de novo), with directions for specific information exchange.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the applications based on generic grounds without adequately considering the assessee's documents and explanations. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remitted both applications back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration (de novo), with directions for specific information exchange.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had already accounted for the increased profit from valuing stock at selling price, which was only highlighted by the tax auditor. The revenue authorities' subsequent addition of the same amount resulted in an unsustainable double addition, leading the Tribunal to set aside the lower authorities' orders and delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from licensing software, which granted a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the software without modification, do not constitute royalty under the DTAA. The Tribunal found that the 'make available' clause under the treaty was not satisfied, and the AO erred in classifying the entire receipts as FTS based on a minor portion of receipts from one agreement.
The Tribunal deleted all three penalties, finding no reason to sustain them. It observed that the penalties were levied solely under Section 271(1)(c) and not based on seized material from the search, distinguishing it from Section 271AAB. Citing *CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)*, the Tribunal emphasized that quantum additions do not automatically attract penalties, and parallel proceedings require independent justification.
The Tribunal deleted all three penalties, finding no reason to sustain them. It observed that the penalties were levied solely under Section 271(1)(c) and not based on seized material from the search, distinguishing it from Section 271AAB. Citing *CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)*, the Tribunal emphasized that quantum additions do not automatically attract penalties, and parallel proceedings require independent justification.
The Tribunal, relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in *PCIT v. Inderjit Singh Sodhi HUF*, held that interest income received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is not exempt and is taxable under the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee's appeal challenging the addition was rejected.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. This was done to ensure natural justice, as the ex-parte assessment under section 144 was passed without issuing a show-cause notice and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard to substantiate the source of the bank deposit.
Citing the precedent in *Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT*, the Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 within the prescribed due date is directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's substantive ground in principle and remitted the matter to the Assessing Authority for verification of facts and consequential relief.
The Tribunal held that royalty income received by the assessee from OEMs located outside India is not taxable in India, following its own previous decisions and jurisdictional High Court rulings. The Tribunal found that what was transferred was a limited right to use copyrighted material, not the copyright itself.