Loading ITAT cases…
808 orders · Page 4 of 17
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act by failing to frame points of determination and provide a reasoned speaking order. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found no merit in sustaining the disallowances/additions. It observed no clear-cut nexus between the assessee's transactions and the seized materials, and thus directed the deletion of the impugned disallowances/additions.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment for receipt of services was to be allowed with a mark-up, referencing previous decisions in the assessee's own case and similar cases. The issue regarding the computation of book profit under Section 115JB was restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act did not specify how the seized documents related to the assessee or indicated suppression of income. It found a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's argument lacked merit as they were bound by a jurisdictional High Court decision. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that for income declared under section 44AD, maintenance of books of account and vouchers is not required, and adverse inference cannot be drawn. The cash deposits were out of declared gross receipts.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the legal ground concerning the mandatory approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the RTI information provided by the Department indicated that no approval for Assessment Year 2019-20 was granted. It reiterated the settled legal position that prior approval under section 153D is mandatory for the assessment order to be valid and to demonstrate that the approval was granted after due consideration of the assessment record and was not mechanical. Since the AO failed to produce a copy of the approval, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was framed without the requisite approval under section 153D. The Tribunal allowed the ground raised by the assessee with an observation that if the department can show valid approval was obtained, an application can be filed for recalling the order. As the legal ground was decided in favour of the assessee, other grounds were rendered academic and kept open. The operative direction was to allow the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the orders were considered non-est in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed.
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 CIT(E) erred in applying Section 115BBC to deny registration. While the genuineness of donations needs examination, it should be at the assessment stage. The rejection of regularization based on questioning donation genuineness via Section 115BBC was beyond the scope of inquiry. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not represented before the lower authorities and that the Ld. AR's prayer to set aside the appeal was not controverted by the Ld. DR. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. It found that the payments made by the assessee to its holding company were supported by agreements, invoices, and market comparables, and were essential for the running of the educational institutions. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the disallowances and had not followed the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond four years from the relevant assessment year. Crucially, the Assessing Officer failed to record the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly, which is a mandatory condition for reassessment beyond four years under the proviso to Section 147. The Tribunal relied on a High Court decision to quash the reassessment order.
Recognizing the possibility of communication gaps in the newly introduced faceless hearing system, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be granted three effective opportunities to present their case, albeit at their own risk and responsibility.
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 assessee has provided all relevant documentation and proved the genuineness of the unsecured loan transaction. The fact that the loan was interest-free and potential non-compliance by the lender with the Companies Act does not negate the genuineness of the loan received by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that there was no receipt or supporting evidence to substantiate the impugned addition. The lower authorities relied on alleged information not brought to light. Therefore, the addition made was found to have no merit.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging the reopening validity. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s modified assessment which reduced the addition.
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 an addition on the basis of opening balances of loans under Section 68 of the Act is not sustainable for the current year, as Rs. 83 lakhs of the disputed addition pertained to earlier years. Consequently, the disallowance of interest paid was also not sustained.
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 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 noted that the assessee's counsel had filed a letter instructing not to press the appeal and requested its dismissal as not pressed. The learned DR had no objection to this request. Therefore, after hearing the rival submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No specific findings were made on the merits of the PCIT's order as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 omission to report agricultural income in the correct schedule was an unintentional mistake. It noted that the agricultural income and related expenses were disclosed in another part of the return, making the exemption claim apparent.
The Tribunal held that the appellant company was merely a paper company and an entry operator, used to route unaccounted income. The addition made to the appellant's income was therefore deleted, while a separate addition of Rs. 1,70,000/- for unexplained bank deposits was confirmed.
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 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 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 held that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and dismissed it. The primary reason for the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was the finding that no amount of Rs. 1,17,35,487/- was credited in the assessee's books or bank accounts in the relevant previous year. The Tribunal noted that this crucial factual finding by the CIT(A) remained unrebutted by the Revenue. The AO's addition was based solely on the statement of a third party, Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, without corroborating documentary evidence. The assessee had provided substantial evidence, including sale invoices, sale registers, and bank statements, to demonstrate the absence of such sales and the non-receipt of sale proceeds. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that a third-party statement alone was insufficient to sustain such a large addition, especially when the assessee had provided evidence to the contrary and the AO failed to establish that the amount was credited in the assessee's books. The assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application as the assessee's AR had not previously raised the issue of Form-36 availability. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the appeal without considering the contrary findings of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the case was covered by the assessee's own previous appeals where similar additions were deleted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal observed that NCLT's order admitting the CIRP and imposing a moratorium meant the present appeal was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear despite notices. The tax authorities had duly appreciated the incriminating materials and drawn inferences. In the absence of any factual assistance from the assessee to counter these findings, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal held that income tax is a tax on real income and notional income, which is neither earned nor received, cannot be taxed. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the notional interest addition was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The primary reason for this decision was the admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee, which pertained to the extended deposit dates during the Covid period. The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice and fair play, and because the additional evidence was admitted, the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision. The AO is directed to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issue of the disallowance on its merits but rather remanded the case for a fresh adjudication based on the newly admitted evidence. The specific finding on the disallowance itself was not made, as the case was sent back to the AO.
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 reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were bad in law and accordingly quashed. The AO received information from the investigation wing and, based on an Inspector's report, concluded that M/s. First Hi Fin Limited and M/s. U P Electricals Ltd. were untraceable paper companies that had not complied with ROC filings. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO himself recorded findings that these companies existed in the ROC portal and that the assessee had provided their balance sheets showing huge share capital and reserves. The fact that these companies had filed suits against the assessee was also brought to the Tribunal's notice. The Tribunal found that the AO completed the assessment without establishing how the shares subscribed were accommodation or bogus, and without bringing on record any proceedings initiated against these companies by their respective AOs. Making an assessment and forming an opinion without proper verification, especially when the existence of the companies was noted in the ROC portal and they had filed suits, was considered bad in law. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment. The AO was granted liberty to proceed if he possessed material from the respective AOs of the two companies.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal as it was filed twice under different appeal numbers due to a mistake. The Senior Departmental Representative had no objection.
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 found no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging the reopening validity. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s modified assessment which reduced the addition.