Loading ITAT cases…
882 orders · Page 8 of 18
The Tribunal decided on the following grounds: Grounds 3 to 3.2 (PF/ESI disallowance) were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed. Ground 1 (general) was deemed to require no adjudication. Grounds 2 to 2.11 (Transfer Pricing adjustment) were effectively the main issue. The judgment notes that the assessee selected TNMM and computed ALP using gross profit/total costs. However, the detailed findings on this ground are omitted in the provided text. Grounds 4 to 4.1 (interest under Sections 234B and 234C) were allowed. The Tribunal held that interest under these sections is compensatory and mandatory only once liability is established, requiring a default in payment of advance tax. Since the assessee paid advance tax based on its estimate according to the law in force at that time, and no default was committed, interest under Sections 234B and 234C was held to be illegal. The Tribunal followed the ratio in Colte Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd. and directed the AO/TPO to charge interest on the final income determined, ignoring the additional income offered under the APA. Ground 5 (prepaid taxes) was allowed, directing the AO to grant credit after verification. Ground 6 (penalty under Section 270A) was dismissed as premature. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the detailed reasoning for Ground 2 was omitted.
The tribunal held that mere family involvement or related entities do not automatically render a transaction a "colourable device." It noted that the AO did not dispute the adjustment of sale consideration via book entry, and that the onus was on the Revenue to prove the transaction was not real. Suspicion, however strong, cannot be a substitute for evidence. Therefore, the transaction was deemed genuine.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted all necessary documents and evidences, both to the lower authorities and in the paper book. It noted that the trust was registered late from 23.03.2017 under Section 12AA and Section 80G, with no change in its objects or activities.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, holding that they were passed without considering the merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were remitted to the NFAC/CIT(A) for fresh decision after proper notice.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, holding that they were passed without considering the merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were remitted to the NFAC/CIT(A) for fresh decision after proper notice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity of hearing by the NFAC. The addition made on account of the sale of immovable property was also exclusively made in the hands of the assessee, despite it being jointly held.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC decided the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's submissions or entering into the merits. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and set aside the NFAC's orders.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC decided the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's submissions or entering into the merits. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and set aside the NFAC's orders.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the mode of service of notices and dismissed the appeals without touching the merits. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the mode of service of notices and dismissed the appeals without touching the merits. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the mode of service of notices and dismissed the appeals without touching the merits. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order lacked reasoned findings regarding the delay and failed to address the appeal's merits. Consequently, the NFAC's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to want of proper, legal, and valid approval under Section 151(ii) of the Act, as the approval obtained was from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General as required for cases beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to want of proper, legal, and valid approval under Section 151(ii) of the Act, as the approval obtained was from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General as required for cases beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Recognizing the possibility of communication gaps and lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) by the lower appellate order, the Tribunal set aside the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Recognizing the possibility of communication gaps and lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) by the lower appellate order, the Tribunal set aside the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the impugned order of the NFAC was to be set aside. The issue on merits and law was restored to the NFAC to decide afresh after giving due notice.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented business income, but allowed a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- as profit element, granting the assessee relief of Rs. 13,90,000/-. It was also noted that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment beyond the statutory four-year period was invalid. The Assessing Officer failed to mandatorily record the assessee's failure to disclose all relevant particulars fully and truly, as required by the first proviso to Section 147. Such reopening, without specifying the assessee's failure, is not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the Assessing Authority had not made any addition based on the sole reason cited for reopening. The Tribunal relied on precedents from Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC should have given the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and file an application for condonation of delay before dismissing the appeal. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to provide this opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and noted that the ex-parte proceedings by the CIT(A)/NFAC might be due to communication gaps with the taxpayer given the new faceless hearing system. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the admitted reason for the delay by the authorized representative was justifiable. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were to be decided on merits by the NFAC.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal on the basis of delay, as the delay had already been condoned by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the assessee should be given an opportunity to contest the issue on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders did not examine whether the deposits were made according to the interpretation of 'due date' as per the relevant statute, despite a Supreme Court ruling. Therefore, the issue was remitted to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal noted that while notices were issued, the record did not clearly indicate the mode of service or confirmation of service to the assessee's knowledge. Therefore, to ensure justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence of the contract and prove the nature of income. The lower authorities upheld the AO's action of treating the entire receipts as professional income and making an addition.
The Tribunal noted that while notices were issued, the record did not clearly indicate the mode of service or confirmation of service to the assessee's knowledge. Therefore, to ensure justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while notices were issued, the record did not clearly indicate the mode of service or confirmation of service to the assessee's knowledge. Therefore, to ensure justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while notices were issued, the record did not clearly indicate the mode of service or confirmation of service to the assessee's knowledge. Therefore, to ensure justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's orders were not sustainable due to the failure to consider the assessee's adjournment requests and the summary dismissal on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to contest the issues on merits and law.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's orders were not sustainable due to the failure to consider the assessee's adjournment requests and the summary dismissal on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to contest the issues on merits and law.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's orders were not sustainable due to the failure to consider the assessee's adjournment requests and the summary dismissal on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to contest the issues on merits and law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee needs an opportunity to contest the case on merits before the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the assessee, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and that the NFAC should have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the order of the NFAC, remanding the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The tribunal noted that the impugned order did not disclose the mode of service and allowed the assessee an opportunity to contest on merits.
The Tribunal held that DDT is a tax on the domestic company's income and not on the shareholder's income. Therefore, the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) does not apply to DDT paid by the domestic company. The Tribunal followed the Special Bench decision in Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable as it lacked tangible material with a live nexus to the reasons for reopening. Citing the precedent of PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd., the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the issues under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the CIT(DR) raised no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to revive it if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal held that although notices were claimed to be issued by the NFAC, the mode of service and satisfaction about due service were not mentioned. Thus, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and restored to the NFAC.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to be heard on merits. The impugned order was set aside and remitted back to the NFAC with a direction to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had provided the necessary declaration to the deductor/bank regarding the relevant information on time, the denial of TDS credit was not justified. The actions of the lower authorities were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC failed to properly record the service of notices. Since the assessee raised substantial questions of facts, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that there was a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. DTAA provisions and Section 90 of the Income Tax Act grant a vested right to FTC, which cannot be disallowed for procedural non-compliance. Rules cannot override the Act.
The Tribunal noted the ex-parte proceedings at both the appellate and Tribunal levels. Considering potential communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that employees of the erstwhile State Electricity Board, whose services vested in the State Government and were then transferred to transferee entities under the Electricity Act, 2003, are eligible for leave encashment exemption. The service conditions were protected, entitling them to the exemption.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide explanations for the source of cash deposits and credit entries. While the AO's addition for cash deposits was largely upheld, the addition for credit entries was restricted. The Tribunal granted a partial relief considering the assessee's socio-economic status.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and absence from hearings. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) and directed the assessee to comply with the directions without seeking adjournments.