Loading ITAT cases…
882 orders · Page 1 of 18
The Tribunal held that for the issue concerning the transfer of power, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the adjustment made by the TPO. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed the rule of consistency, observing that no such adjustments were made in the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17 and previous years. The Tribunal also referred to a jurisdictional High Court judgment upholding a similar order of the Tribunal. Regarding the transfer of steam, the Tribunal followed its own observations made in ITA No.927/Del/2022 for AY 2015-16, which in turn relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee on this issue was allowed. The judgment also mentions an issue regarding foreign tax credit where the Tribunal directed the Pr. CIT to dispose of the application for condonation of delay in claiming foreign tax credit in accordance with law and allow it if in accordance with law, partly allowing the assessee's grounds for statistical purposes. The issue of additions under Section 14A was also addressed, with the CIT(A) having deleted the additions, and the Revenue challenging this deletion through additional grounds.
The Tribunal held that the cash sales were duly reflected in the assessee's books of accounts and VAT returns, and the stock inventory supported these sales. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), as the cash deposits were sourced from disclosed cash sales, and making an addition would result in double taxation.
The Tribunal noted that the earlier appeal concerning Section 80G was remanded. The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to furnish necessary evidence for registration under Section 12A, remanding the matter back to the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits, after allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to present documentary evidence and comply with the notices. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold. For the assessee's appeals, deductions under sections 80IC and 10AA were allowed, while disallowances for foreign travel and club expenses were restricted to 10% and 20% respectively.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 as the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold. For other appeals, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by restricting disallowances on foreign travel and club expenses, and dismissed the Revenue's remaining grounds.
The Tribunal held that the objects of the trust deed were indeed charitable in nature. The assessee's activities, including skill training and partnerships, were found to be charitable. The denial of registration by the CIT(E) was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding freight charges by following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the same group. For interest expenses, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, thus the entire interest disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned, and that CBDT circulars do not override this settled legal position. Regarding TDS mismatch, the Tribunal found the assessee's POCM explanation valid and that the AO had accepted it.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits, after allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to present documentary evidence and comply with the notices. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that technicalities must yield to substantial justice. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed a condonation petition explaining circumstances beyond his control. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to adjudicate the appeal within three effective opportunities. The taxpayer is to plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility in the consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the AO treated only a portion of the loans as bogus while accepting the rest from the same lenders, raising doubts. It also observed that the assessee had provided documentary evidence and repaid a significant portion of the loans, and the AO failed to establish a direct nexus with accommodation entries.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte and not speaking.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary details and evidence, and to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal condoned the 1137-day delay in filing the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. On the substantive issue, the tribunal directed the assessing authority to ensure that no double addition of salary income is made in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal held that the objects of the trust deed were indeed charitable in nature. The assessee's activities, including skill training and partnerships, were found to be charitable. The denial of registration by the CIT(E) was therefore unjustified.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding freight charges by following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the same group. For interest expenses, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, thus the entire interest disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to produce all details and evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted liberty to produce all relevant documents and evidence, and both parties were to be given an opportunity.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case and evidence, noting that while the assessee did not comply with notices, it was in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that for Section 68 to apply, sums must be credited in the assessee's own books. Since the cash credits were in the books of other companies, Section 68 was not applicable to the assessee. The issue of consolidated approval was not adjudicated.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 as the tax effect was below the threshold. Assessee's appeals for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 were partly allowed, with reduced disallowances on foreign travel and club expenses. Revenue's appeal for AY 2015-16 was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that regarding the difference in purchases (Rs. 4,92,684), while it prima facie represented out-of-books sales, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 50,000 representing the profit element would be just and proper, not to be treated as a precedent, granting the assessee relief of Rs. 4,42,684. For interest on sales tax and interest on TDS, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grounds, noting the revenue could not dispute their compensatory nature, and deleted these disallowances/additions. Concerning the Rs. 25,00,000 addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE, the Tribunal, considering the proven opening balance, deemed a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1,00,000 to be just and proper, granting the assessee relief of Rs. 24,00,000. The appeal concerning this issue (ITA No. 1736/Del/2025) was partly accepted. For the addition of Rs. 12,00,000 under Section 50C, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee that as a purchaser, it could not be subjected to Section 50C, and thus deleted the addition. The latter appeal (ITA No. 1737/Del/2025) was allowed. The Tribunal also clarified that Section 115BBE is applicable for transactions on or after 01.04.2017, directing assessment under normal provisions, referencing the Madras High Court decision in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the possibility of communication gaps, restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing at their risk.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the possibility of communication gaps, restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing at their risk.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences filed by the assessee were crucial and went to the root of the matter. The CIT(A) was directed to admit these documents and decide the appeal on merits after providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding purchase differences and cash credits by making a lumpsum addition representing profit/source. It allowed the deletion of disallowances for interest on sales tax and TDS, and deleted an addition under Section 50C.
The Tribunal held that the addition of INR 5.90 crores as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed provided documentary evidence, including loan confirmation letters, bank statements, and copies of cheques, to substantiate the loans received from the four entities. The Tribunal noted that the AO had issued summons to these entities under Section 133(6), which were complied with. The Tribunal was of the view that the AO had erred in disregarding the evidence furnished by the assessee and making the addition solely based on the search conducted in the case of Shri Ankit Bhageria and the allegations of him being an entry operator. The Tribunal reasoned that once the assessee establishes the identity of the creditor, the creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction by producing documentary evidence, the onus shifts to the AO to prove that the transaction was not genuine. In this case, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial onus. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the Cross-Objections filed by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the cash deposits were adequately explained by the assessee's cash flow and bank statements. It also held that commodity trading loss is not an expenditure and, after amendment to Section 43(5), is not a speculative loss, allowing it to be set off.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary details and evidence, and to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 507 days in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps at various levels in such instances. Consequently, in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant, at the appellant's risk and responsibility, for consequential proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 148 was not sustainable in law due to the lack of valid sanction under section 151(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70, which clarified the authorities required for sanctioning reassessment notices based on the time elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the instant case, the notice under section 148 was issued after more than three years had elapsed from the end of assessment year 2016-17. According to section 151(ii) of the new regime, for cases where more than three years have elapsed, the prior approval must be obtained from a higher authority, specifically the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. The Tribunal found that the approval obtained was not from the appropriate higher authority as mandated by section 151(ii). Consequently, the impugned reopening and reassessment proceedings were quashed. As a result, all other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The issue regarding the disallowance of EDC and the levy of interest were not decided on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to produce all details and evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and bonafide reasons. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide all necessary details.
The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on a mechanical approval from the prescribed authority under section 151, which was not rebutted by the department. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) to decide the applications afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary details and evidence.
The Tribunal decided to restore the issue of transfer pricing adjustment on account of transfer of power and steam to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the adjustments based on its own order for AY 2016-17 and the fact that no such adjustments were made in prior years. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not independently examined the issue for AY 2015-16. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a fresh determination of ALP, considering all relevant factors and evidence, including the internal CUP data and external benchmarks, and to decide whether the transactions were at ALP. Regarding the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted it, and the Revenue had raised it as an additional ground. Since the CIT(A)'s order on this point was not detailed in the provided extract, and the matter was being remanded on the primary transfer pricing issue, the Tribunal did not make a specific finding on Section 14A in the provided portion, implying it might be addressed in the full order or was not the primary focus of the excerpt.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding freight charges by following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the same group. For interest expenses, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available, thus the entire interest disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by the approval for multiple cases on the same day and a single approval for multiple assessment years. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty was unsustainable. The claim for leave encashment was considered debatable and made on a provisional basis with bona fides, and therefore, the penalty should not have been imposed.
The Tribunal held that for Section 68 to apply, sums must be credited in the assessee's own books. Since the cash credits were in the books of other companies, Section 68 was not applicable to the assessee. The issue of consolidated approval was not adjudicated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the parties from whom loans were received. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for not meeting the monetary threshold. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with specific adjustments made to deductions and disallowances related to head office expenses, foreign travel, and club expenses.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by the approval for multiple cases on the same day and a single approval for multiple assessment years. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the possibility of communication gaps, restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing at their risk.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and provide necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the application for registration was not justified and that the matter should be remanded back for consideration of documents. The assessee's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.