Loading ITAT cases…
808 orders · Page 3 of 17
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the services rendered. It also held that managerial services are not 'fee for technical services' under the India-UK DTAA, thus no TDS was required.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were not time-barred. The exclusion period under Section 153B Explanation (viii) for references to foreign authorities was correctly applied, and the assessment was completed within the permissible time frame.
The Tribunal decided on the transfer pricing adjustments related to contract R&D services. It also addressed grounds raised by the revenue concerning AMP expenses and the existence of international transactions.
The Tribunal held that there was no receipt or evidence presented to substantiate the addition. The lower authorities relied solely on alleged information without proper reconciliation or substantiation, finding no merit in the impugned addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were completed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The last warrant of search was executed on February 19, 2014, meaning assessments under Section 153A should have been completed by March 31, 2016, as per Section 153B.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new system of faceless hearings. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the exclusion of time for exchange of information under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B is applicable only if the reference is made in terms of Section 90/90A and the relevant DTAA. Since the reference was not in terms of the amended Indo-Swiss DTAA, the assessments were barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that since the interest on the loan was capitalized and not claimed as revenue expenditure, disallowance under Section 40A(2)(a) was not justified. Regarding processing charges, the Tribunal found a nexus between these expenses and interest income earned, allowing them as deduction under Section 57(iii).
The Tribunal held that the exclusion of time for exchange of information under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B is applicable only if the reference is made in terms of Section 90/90A and the relevant DTAA. Since the reference was not in terms of the amended Indo-Swiss DTAA, the assessments were barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the period of limitation for assessment could not be extended under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B based on the reference made. This was because the reference was not in terms of the Indo-Swiss DTAA as amended, and the relevant article had ceased to exist after a certain date.
The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the assessee's submissions and relied on Supreme Court decisions, making the issue debatable. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was not sustainable, and the AO's assessment order was based on a plausible view.
The Tribunal held that the compliance of filing/uploading Form 10B is a directory, not a mandatory, provision. Therefore, the denial of exemption was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not doubted the objects of the trust. The evidence, including photographs, demonstrated that the assessee was indeed distributing food to the poor as per its objects. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to restore the provisional registration and grant registration under Section 12A and 80G.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were not time-barred, as the information received from UAE authorities was within the permissible period. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remaining issues on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessments framed on December 30, 2016, were not time-barred. The Tribunal reasoned that the reference made to UAE authorities, which was honored by the UAE authorities on August 9, 2017, fell within a period of 'one year' of the reference, thereby extending the limitation period. The assessee's reliance on a jurisdictional High Court decision concerning the Indo-Swiss DTAA was distinguished, as the notification therein contained specific time period stipulations for fiscal years on or after April 1, 2011, which were not applicable to the assessment years in question. Regarding the India-UAE DTAA, Article 28 and Notification No. 29 of 2013 did not contain such time period stipulations. The Tribunal cited Union of India and Anr. Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and Linklaters LLP vs. ITO (2010) 9 ITR (Trib.) 217 (Mum) to emphasize that tax treaties should be interpreted in good faith. Consequently, the assessee's contentions regarding the assessments being time-barred were rejected. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits, having quashed the assessments on limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits. The Revenue's appeals were allowed, and the assessee's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the pandemic and relevant case law. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were not time-barred. The period of limitation for framing assessments was extended due to a reference made to UAE authorities, and the assessment was completed within the permissible extended period.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the AO was barred by limitation as it was not passed within the time prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, allowing the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard and present necessary documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to faceless hearings. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of bad debts was not justified as the assessee had sufficiently established the amounts were written off from receivables. The Tribunal also found that prior period expenses were allowable as they related to business operations and were not claimed to reduce tax liability. Regarding the interest-free loan, the Tribunal ruled that it was advanced from the assessee's own funds, not borrowed funds, thus deleting the proportionate disallowance of interest expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted for multiple assessment years under Section 153D was not sustainable, as it did not comply with the mandate of the law. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction for passing the assessment orders under Section 153C was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursements for client-related expenses and computer maintenance charges do not constitute FTS or royalty. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these payments.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s findings to be inconsistent and cryptic. Consequently, both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals were restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity for submissions.
The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were indeed passed beyond the statutory time limit. It noted that the ITAT's order was served on the CIT-DR on March 28, 2019, making the AO's subsequent order on April 23, 2021, time-barred.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the interest-free advances were made for commercial expediency and there was no evidence of tax evasion. The Tribunal noted that the investee company was a regular tax payer with a higher effective tax rate.
The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted for multiple assessment years under Section 153D was not sustainable, as it did not comply with the mandate of the law. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction for passing the assessment orders under Section 153C was vitiated.
The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were indeed passed beyond the statutory time limit. Therefore, the orders were considered non-est in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that due to the ex-parte nature of the order and the possibility of communication gaps in the new faceless system, it was appropriate to restore the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that due to the ex-parte nature of the order and the possibility of communication gaps in the new faceless system, it was appropriate to restore the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) decided the issues without appreciating the facts as required by law and that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not participating. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal found that only Rs.27,50,000/- was received by the assessee in the current year through banking channels, and the allegation of cash receipt was largely incorrect, except for a minor amount in a preceding year. The assessee provided proper explanations, bank statements, and confirmations, thus the addition under Section 69/69A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty levied by the AO. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had claimed deductions under Section 80HHC based on a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, and there was no evidence to suggest that the CA committed a mistake or that any action was taken against the CA. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had restricted its claim of deduction under Chapter VI-A to the gross total income, leaving a portion of long-term capital gain to tax. It was not the revenue's case that the gross total income declared by the assessee was enhanced by the AO. Furthermore, the matter concerning the deduction under Section 80IA was restored to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal concluded that since the assessee had not concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income, no penalty could be imposed. The reasoning relied on the principle that for penalty to be imposed, it must be found as a fact that the explanation offered by the assessee was not bona fide and that the assessee had not disclosed all material facts. In this case, the assessee had disclosed all material facts, and the issue was primarily about the quantum of deduction, which was claimed bona fide based on expert advice. The penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Act. Therefore, the orders were considered non-est in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted for multiple assessment years under Section 153D was not sustainable, as it did not comply with the mandate of the law. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction for passing the assessment orders under Section 153C was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that for Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal, the CIT(A)'s deletion of INR 3,67,06,904/- was upheld. The Tribunal noted the assessee's explanation that this amount represented rent reimbursed to customers for properties sold but not fully paid for, and that the title was transferred later. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. For Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal, the deletion of INR 2,63,10,771/- on account of unrealized debtors was also upheld. The Tribunal observed the assessee's consistent practice of reducing unrealized claims, the verification of claims, and the fact that the amount suffered tax in subsequent years upon realization. For Ground No. 3 of the Revenue's appeal and all grounds of the assessee's appeal concerning disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found that the issue needed to be examined afresh by the AO. The AO was directed to verify if INR 27,81,660/- related to provisions for material and to verify if due TDS was deducted and deposited on the service portion before filing the return. The AO was also to consider the assessee's method of revenue recognition. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed, and the assessee's appeal was also partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not leviable in cases where the assessee files a revised return before the completion of assessment, disclosing the entire income that was initially omitted. The Tribunal reasoned that the filing of a revised return demonstrates a voluntary disclosure and a bonafide intent to correct the original return. The act of rectifying the omission before assessment proceedings are finalized negates the element of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars with the intent to evade tax. The Tribunal relied on the principle that penalty provisions are punitive and should not be invoked when the assessee has shown a willingness to comply and disclose all relevant information. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, there was a possibility of communication gaps, especially with the introduction of faceless hearings. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This restoration is subject to three effective opportunities for the assessee to plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s findings to be inconsistent and cryptic. Consequently, both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals were restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity for submissions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to make submissions before the authorities below. The matter was remanded to the AO for a de novo assessment, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal decided as follows: 1. Regarding the Rs. 27,45,500/- deposit in Punjab National Bank, the Tribunal found that this amount represented a payment made by the assessee towards a One Time Settlement (OTS) finalized with the bank. It was inferred that this was a re-deposit of the corresponding loan amount. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in this addition and directed its deletion. The ratio is that a re-deposit of a settled loan amount does not constitute unexplained income. 2. Regarding the cash deposits of Rs. 11,05,000/- and Rs. 4,50,000/- in Karnataka Bank and State Bank of India, the Tribunal noted that the assessee is engaged in dairy business and had filed records of previous cash withdrawals. While the lower authorities did not give credit for these, the assessee could not reconcile all entries to their satisfaction. In the interest of justice, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deemed just and proper out of both these heads, with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition of Rs. 11,05,000/- and confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding restricting the addition on the Rs. 4,50,000/- head to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Necessary computation shall follow. 3. Regarding assessment under Section 115BBE, the Tribunal, relying on S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Madras High Court), held that the provision comes into effect for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017. The assessee was directed to be assessed under normal provisions as per law. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the exact applicability of Section 115BBE for the specific assessment year if the transactions fell before the effective date.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition on sundry creditors, finding that the AO's remand report accepted their genuineness. The Tribunal also directed the AO to restrict the estimated net profit rate to 3.5% based on preceding and succeeding assessment years.
The Tribunal held that given the ex-parte nature of the lower appellate order and the possibility of communication gaps, it was appropriate to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to be engaged in business, and a small cash-in-hand amount was granted. It was held that the impugned cash deposits likely represented business turnover. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent. Regarding Section 115BBE, it was noted that the provision applies to transactions on or after 01.04.2017, and the assessee was directed to be assessed under normal provisions.
The Tribunal held that for Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal, the CIT(A)'s deletion of INR 3,67,06,904/- was upheld. The Tribunal noted the assessee's explanation that this amount represented rent reimbursed to customers for properties sold but not fully paid for, and that the title was transferred later. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. For Ground No. 2 of the Revenue's appeal, the deletion of INR 2,63,10,771/- on account of unrealized debtors was also upheld. The Tribunal observed the assessee's consistent practice of reducing unrealized claims, the verification of claims, and the fact that the amount suffered tax in subsequent years upon realization. For Ground No. 3 of the Revenue's appeal and all grounds of the assessee's appeal concerning disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found that the issue needed to be examined afresh by the AO. The AO was directed to verify if INR 27,81,660/- related to provisions for material and to verify if due TDS was deducted and deposited on the service portion before filing the return. The AO was also to consider the assessee's method of revenue recognition. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed, and the assessee's appeal was also partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Addl. CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the entire search assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessment years and assessees without specific mention of seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal found that the valuation of stock by the Government Approved Valuer had a basic fallacy. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 10 companies from the comparable set used for transfer pricing adjustments. It also held that the Bright Line Test cannot be applied for transfer pricing adjustments related to AMP expenditure, following previous High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessment years and assessees without specific mention of seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.