Loading ITAT cases…
308 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal held that communication gaps in the new faceless hearing system could not be ruled out. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross objections. It held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective for not specifying the limb under which penalty was initiated. Consequently, the penalty was quashed for AY 2010-11 and other AYs. For AY 2006-07, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the receipts for supply of equipment were not taxable in India as business income. However, receipts for drawings and designs were considered FTS and taxable. For supervisory services, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification of accounting treatment.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act for multiple assessment years in a consolidated manner was not in consonance with the statutory requirement, which mandates individual approval for each assessment year. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the approval exercise to be mechanical and without proper application of mind.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to plead and prove all relevant facts.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the tax audit report, considering it directory rather than mandatory. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, with the assessee to prove its case within three opportunities.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's withdrawal application and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated for verification of purchases, but no additions were ultimately made by the lower authorities on this ground. Relying on the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories v. CIT, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening.
The Tribunal, following judicial consistency due to the restoration of the quantum appeal, remanded the penalty appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to improper service of notice under Section 148. Since the assessment order was quashed as void ab initio, any additions made therein, and consequently any penalty levied, could not survive.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have dealt with the additional evidence in accordance with law, including obtaining a remand report, rather than simply asking the assessee to substantiate it. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's corresponding sales were treated as genuine, only the gross profit element of the purchases should be disallowed. A lump sum disallowance of 10% of the purchases (Rs. 2,38,100/-) was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal, following its coordinate bench's order, decided to remand the penalty appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This ensures consistency in the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that there was no proper fact-finding at the lower levels (AO and CIT(A)) and that the assessee was denied an opportunity for proper examination. New evidence was also submitted.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal with liberty to revive the appeals if the scheme declaration is not accepted.
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision to refuse condonation of delay. It restricted the addition under Section 69 to Rs. 2.71 lakhs and directed that Section 115BBE should not be applied as the transaction was before April 1, 2017. The penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision to not condone the delay. It restricted the addition under Section 69 to Rs. 2.71 lakhs and deleted the addition under Section 115BBE. The penalty imposed under Section 271AAC was also deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investment of its surplus funds in co-operative banks, co-operative societies, and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d). The lower authorities' rejection of the claim was not sustained.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons and proper approval. The addition of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained income was also confirmed, as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction.
The Tribunal found that the issue required fresh factual verification by the Assessing Officer, as DDT cannot be levied on a loss-making entity. The appeal was restored to the AO for this purpose.
The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had relied on a Chartered Accountant's certificate for claiming deductions and there was no evidence of malafide intention or willful concealment. Therefore, no penalty could be imposed.
On the issue of notional interest on loans advanced to AEs, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had restricted the adjustment to the LIBOR rate, and thus this ground of appeal was decided accordingly. Regarding notional interest on outstanding receivables for AY 2012-13, the Tribunal held that the transaction was outside the purview of Section 92B explanation and that the amendment effective from 2013-14 was not applicable. Therefore, no adjustment was warranted for this year. Furthermore, for AYs 2014-15 and 2016-17, the Tribunal observed substantial sales to non-AEs without charging interest on delayed payments. Citing settled law that if no interest is charged from non-AEs, no notional addition can be made for AEs, the Tribunal held that the TPO and CIT(A) were not justified in sustaining these additions. Consequently, this ground of appeal was allowed for all three years. Concerning the notional commission on corporate guarantee, the Tribunal respectfully followed the verdict of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case, which held a 1% rate of interest to be appropriate for adjustment towards commission. The issue was restored to the AO for computing interest at 1% for corporate guarantee commission.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee has settled the issues under VSVS 2024 and the Department has acknowledged the payment, the appeal has become infructuous.
The Tribunal found the assessee to be recalcitrant and lacking respect for statutory notices. In the absence of any controverting material from the assessee, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of foreign exchange difference and server hosting charges were made on an ad hoc basis and required further examination. Regarding the share premium, the Tribunal noted that investment in shares is a capital transaction and not income. Relying on High Court decisions, it was held that the source of the source was not required to be established for investments from a foreign parent company, especially when sourced from a venture capital.
The Tribunal deleted the adjustment on purchase of raw materials based on the principle of consistency and the assessee's healthy gross margin. Adjustments related to interest on ECB were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal deleted the adjustment on purchase of raw materials based on the principle of consistency and the assessee's healthy gross margin. Adjustments related to interest on ECB were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the approval of the resolution plan under the IBC extinguishes all prior tax liabilities, as confirmed by Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The assessment orders passed after the resolution plan's approval were therefore invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessees and lacked substantive adjudication. Acknowledging potential communication gaps due to the new faceless/hybrid hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.
The Tribunal held that the Revisional Authority, without conducting further inquiry or appreciating further material, had given a finding that the assessment order was prejudicial. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was not sustainable under law as the Revisional Authority had not sufficiently demonstrated that the AO's inquiry was inadequate.
The Tribunal held that the repair and maintenance services did not 'make available' technical knowledge, know-how, or skill to the customers, thus not qualifying as FTS under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Consequently, the income was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO a reasonable opportunity to examine and rebut it, as required by Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in deciding the appeals ex parte without considering the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had observed that the assessee had filed submissions and sought further time, yet proceeded to decide the appeal ex parte without mentioning any notice or opportunity of hearing being given to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the NFAC did not enter into the merits of the case. Consequently, the impugned orders of the NFAC were set aside. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes and restored to the files of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee as per law and decide the issues on merits afresh. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not satisfactorily prove the source of cash deposits, the lower authorities failed to consider the benefit of past savings or social-economic status. Therefore, the addition was restricted to a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and assessment under Section 115BBE was deleted.
The Tribunal observed a nexus between the grandfather's sale deeds and the cash deposits. However, the assessee failed to satisfactorily discharge the onus of proof. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 10 lakhs was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by taxing the income on a substantive basis when the DRP had directed taxation on a protective basis. Consequently, the final assessment order was deemed void ab initio and quashed.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had not fully discharged the onus to prove the source of all cash deposits, the department could not dispute all of them as unexplained. Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs. 1.69 lakhs, providing relief of Rs. 5 lakhs to the assessee. Additionally, the assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be made under normal provisions, as the section was effective from April 1, 2017.
The tribunal held that interest received on investments made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d). However, interest on TDS refund was not considered derived from eligible business and the disallowance was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of a legal representative as defined by the Act and the Civil Procedure Code. The appeals were therefore considered premature and lacking merit at this stage.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps leading to the ex-parte proceedings. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that technicalities should not impede substantial justice and that the assessee's appeal should be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to prove their case at their own risk.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings and the assessment orders were bad in law because they were initiated against non-existent entities. The merger of the assessee companies was established by High Court orders.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The sole issue was the deletion of the addition of Rs.1,41,36,737/- made under Section 68 of the Act by the AO. The AO had made the addition for alleged unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee's stand was that these deposits were from cash sales and recovery from debtors. The CIT(A), after examining the audited books of account, VAT & Excise returns, and other documents furnished by the assessee, concluded that the assessee's submissions were duly supported by evidence. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not pointed out any defects in the books of account or rejected them. The assessee had discharged its onus in proving the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings, as the Revenue's representative failed to controvert them. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as devoid of merit.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of cash received from the sale of property was not based on supportive material and was already settled in the buyer's case. The addition on account of cash paid for property purchase was also not sustainable as the transaction was cancelled and the source of funds was found to be unsubstantiated.
The tribunal held that the rectification order for disallowing excess depreciation was not based on apparent mistakes but on an audit objection, and such issues were debatable, thus Section 154 was wrongly invoked. For AY 2016-17, the reopening notice was vitiated due to incorrect information and non-application of mind by the competent authority.
The tribunal held that the rectification order for disallowing excess depreciation was not based on apparent mistakes but on an audit objection, and such issues were debatable, thus Section 154 was wrongly invoked. For AY 2016-17, the reopening notice was vitiated due to incorrect information and non-application of mind by the competent authority.
The Tribunal held that the refusal by the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay was not sustainable in law, citing the judgment in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The lower appellate order was reversed, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication.