Loading ITAT cases…
607 orders · Page 6 of 13
During the hearing, the assessee's counsel filed an application requesting to withdraw both appeals, stating that the assessee had already obtained 12A registration and applied for fresh 80G registration. The Sr. DR had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had already adjudicated the assessee's main appeal on the same date and that the assessee's counsel could not rebut this fact, leading to the dismissal of the current appeal to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's substantial cash withdrawals and undisputable opening cash balance as a source. It allowed for a reasonable deduction of household expenses from the available cash, thereby recalculating the actual deficit. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider this revised calculation, resulting in a reduced addition of Rs 16,37,645 as unexplained money.
After verifying the submission and the receipt of Form No. 2 under the Vivadse Vishwas Scheme, 2020, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as requested by the assessee's counsel.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it observed that the expenditure was for fittings in rented premises under a 9-year lease, with obligations to change designs as per Titan Company Ltd.'s requirements. Concluding that no new asset was created, nor was an enduring benefit derived, the Tribunal held that the expenditure on fixtures and fittings is revenue in nature, setting aside the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding interest income and foreign exchange gains being eligible for deduction under Section 10AA. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal on issues related to export turnover and directed the AO to allow credit for TDS.
The tribunal held that the income received by the assessee from Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. is taxable as 'fees for technical services' in India, both under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (specifically Section 5(2) and Section 9) and the India-UK DTAA. It emphasized the 'source rule,' stating that since the payer (Genpact India) is located in India, the income accrues or arises in India and is therefore chargeable to tax. All objections raised by the assessee and previously rejected by the DRP were upheld.
The tribunal held that the income received by the assessee from Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. is taxable as 'fees for technical services' in India, both under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (specifically Section 5(2) and Section 9) and the India-UK DTAA. It emphasized the 'source rule,' stating that since the payer (Genpact India) is located in India, the income accrues or arises in India and is therefore chargeable to tax. All objections raised by the assessee and previously rejected by the DRP were upheld.
For the section 40A(3) disallowance, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification regarding the threshold limit for goods carriage payments. For the 20% ad-hoc disallowance of salaries, wages, and electricity, it was restricted to an estimated 5%. The section 68 addition for unexplained cash credits was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the onus on the assessee to provide proof.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- for departmental appeals to the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Consequently, the Assessee's Cross Objection was dismissed as academic.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) can only be levied during the lifetime of the assessee. Therefore, the penalty order passed after the assessee's death was invalid.
The CIT(A) held that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the foreign investors. The tribunal agreed that the provided documentation sufficiently proved the source of funds as per RBI guidelines, leading to the deletion of the addition.
The CIT(A) held that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the foreign investors. The tribunal agreed that the provided documentation sufficiently proved the source of funds as per RBI guidelines, leading to the deletion of the addition.
For the 'Quality Cut expenditure', the Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground to treat it as bad debts and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication under section 36(2). For 'Freight Inward' disallowance, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance from 25% to 10%, partly accepting the assessee's claim. Regarding the addition of sundry creditors, citing a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that such an addition under section 68 is not sustainable when trading results are accepted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search pertaining to the assessee, no addition could be made. The findings from a third-party search could not be treated as incriminating material for the assessee's unabated year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 as the return of income and the audit report (Form 10B) were filed together within the time limit prescribed under section 139(4). The Tribunal also noted that the grants received were for specific purposes and did not partake the character of income.
The Tribunal held that receipts from data center and advertisement space services were not royalty as they did not involve the use or right to use of tangible property. It further held that business support, external consultant, and travel-related receipts were not FTS as they did not meet the 'make available' test, meaning the Indian entity was not enabled to apply the technology independently.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was previously settled in favor of the assessee in earlier assessment years (2012-13 to 2016-17) by both the ITAT and the CIT(A), thereby applying the principle of consistency. Furthermore, the society had amended its Memorandum of Association and Rules in 2017, explicitly stating that such fees should be treated as part of the corpus fund. Considering these factors, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's submissions and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search pertaining to the assessee, no addition could be made. The findings from a third-party search could not be treated as incriminating material for the assessee's unabated year.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment for notional interest on outstanding receivables was not justified as the assessee was a debt-free company, incurred no interest expenditure, and the DRP's direction for working capital adjustment was not given effect. It directed the AO to grant the section 35DD deduction for amalgamation expenditure, clarifying that the Goetze India restriction does not apply to appellate authorities. Interest under section 234B was deemed consequential, and interest under section 234C was to be charged only on returned income. Ground 4, not pressed, was dismissed.
The Tribunal admitted new documents presented by the assessee regarding cash credits from Sh. Sachit Kapur and Sh. Pankaj Kapur. Consequently, these issues were remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect was below the minimum threshold of Rs. 60 lakhs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17.09.2024. This circular applies with retrospective effect to all pending appeals, a fact not disputed by the Departmental Representative.
The Tribunal admitted new documents presented by the assessee regarding cash credits from Sh. Sachit Kapur and Sh. Pankaj Kapur. Consequently, these issues were remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply with AO's notices and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal. Considering the assessee's prayer to restore the matter to the AO and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal found it expedient to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that assessment under Section 153A is linked to search and requires incriminating material for unabated assessments. Since no such material was found, the assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that assessment under Section 153A is linked to search and requires incriminating material for unabated assessments. Since no such material was found, the assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal admitted new documents presented by the assessee regarding cash credits from Sh. Sachit Kapur and Sh. Pankaj Kapur. Consequently, these issues were remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the presumptions under Section 132(4A) and 292C are rebuttable and that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence to link the seized documents to the assessee. The assessee's denial and the lack of independent inquiry by the Revenue discharged the onus on the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not rebut the assessee's argument regarding success on the same issue in the preceding assessment year. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the entire disallowance of Rs. 7,91,398/- related to club membership/entrance fees, implicitly setting aside the associated interest charges.
The Tribunal held that treating the ground and first floor of the same residential house as two different houses, even if purchased through separate deeds, for the purpose of Section 54 deduction, is not sustainable in law. The Tribunal found the approach of the lower authorities incorrect and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's full Section 54 deduction claim.
The Tribunal admitted new documents presented by the assessee regarding cash credits from Sh. Sachit Kapur and Sh. Pankaj Kapur. Consequently, these issues were remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the approval for reopening the assessment under section 151 was mechanical because the approved copy was untraceable, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the approving authority had applied its mind. Consequently, the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) were held to be bad in law.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on its merits, disregarded the Assessee's submissions, and did not pass a speaking order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring that the Assessee is provided an opportunity of being heard and a speaking order is passed in accordance with law.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention, as the assessee's admission of owning eleven vehicles during the survey was not rebutted. This disqualified him from the benefits of section 44AE presumptive assessment. Therefore, the penalty under section 271B for failure to get books audited was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 54F as sufficient evidence of construction was provided and the land was ancestral. It also held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 54B as the purchased agricultural land was used for agricultural purposes, even if registered in the wife's name. The addition on account of unsecured loan was also deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the assessee's substantive grounds or provided a speaking adjudication as required by section 250(6). Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities to present their case, subject to their sole risk and responsibility.
The Tribunal held that assessment under Section 153A is linked to search and requires incriminating material for unabated assessments. Since no such material was found, the assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (Annexure I) under Rule 29, finding it crucial for a conclusive determination and acknowledging the assessee's lack of sufficient opportunity to furnish it earlier. Subsequently, the impugned orders of the tax authorities were set aside. The issue on merits was restored to the files of the TPO/AO for fresh determination in accordance with the law, considering the admitted additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not excluding the Covid-19 pandemic period for condoning the delay. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the approval for reopening the assessment under section 151 was mechanical because the approved copy was untraceable, and the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the approving authority had applied its mind. Consequently, the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 and the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) were held to be bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the assessee had established the identity of the share subscriber, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the investor, supported by documentary evidence and information exchanged under DTAA.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding interest income and foreign exchange gains being eligible for deduction under Section 10AA. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal on issues related to export turnover and directed the AO to allow credit for TDS.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of denying exemption for delayed filing of Form 10B is covered by CBDT Circular F.No. 173/193/2019. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-verify the details and decide the matter accordingly, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, also observing that no intimation was given to the assessee for the denial of exemption.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remitted both appeals for fresh adjudication to ensure substantial justice. The assessee is directed to provide all necessary details and cooperate fully with the CIT(E) for the adjudication of applications under Section 12AB(i)(b)(ii) and Section 80G of the Act, subject to paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Legal Aid Authority of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment due to improper satisfaction recorded for Section 153C proceedings. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issue of share capital/premium addition back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order, as the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the AO's assessment order.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee acted merely as a pass-through entity for both subscription collection and scholarship disbursement, without any profit element or risk. Therefore, no transfer pricing adjustment was warranted for these transactions, and the adjustment of Rs 49,07,766/- was deleted. Issues regarding interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 244A were clarified/remanded to the AO, and penalty proceedings under section 270A were dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted a reconciliation statement with supporting documents to explain the difference between service tax turnover and income tax turnover. The lower authorities failed to consider this reconciliation and supporting evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal observed that the DRP re-characterized the assessee's activity without providing a proper basis for rejecting its transactions or adopting a different ALP. With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the DRP and the AO. The matter was remanded back to the DRP for fresh adjudication of all issues after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The related Stay Application was dismissed as infructuous.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted the assessee's election to settle the dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (2.0) and their request for withdrawal of appeals. As the Revenue did not contest these averments, the tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.