Loading ITAT cases…
891 orders · Page 3 of 18
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) can be made as the assessee had sufficient own funds to advance to its subsidiary. For Section 14A, disallowance is not permissible if there is no exempt income. Regarding AMP expenses, the Tribunal directed a re-computation based on APA methodology.
The Tribunal held that a proper opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) can be made as the assessee had sufficient own funds to advance to its subsidiary. For Section 14A, disallowance is not permissible if there is no exempt income. Regarding AMP expenses, the Tribunal directed a re-computation based on APA methodology.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation of unquoted shares, used to determine the FMV for issuing new shares, was correctly calculated as per Rule 11UA. The CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the AO's addition, was based on a correct understanding of facts and law.
The Tribunal held that adding the Rs. 101 crores on-money admission over and above the special auditor's quantification was a double addition and directed its deletion. Additions related to unsecured loans and unexplained investments were to be treated as business turnover and assessed at 20%.
The Tribunal found that while notices were mentioned in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, the mode of service and the ends of justice require an opportunity for the assessee to contest on merits and legal issues. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that adding the Rs. 101 crores on-money admission over and above the special auditor's quantification was a double addition and directed its deletion. Additions related to unsecured loans and unexplained investments were to be treated as business turnover and assessed at 20%.
The Tribunal found that while notices were mentioned in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, the mode of service and the ends of justice require an opportunity for the assessee to contest on merits and legal issues. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Ld. CIT(A).
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, considering the repayment and evidence of TDS deducted by the prospective purchaser. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the identity and creditworthiness were not disputed and the transaction between related parties was substantiated by documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that adding the Rs. 101 crores on-money admission over and above the special auditor's quantification was a double addition and directed its deletion. Additions related to unsecured loans and unexplained investments were to be treated as business turnover and assessed at 20%.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal noted that the approval was granted on 28.12.2018 for 51 cases, including the assessee's, for multiple assessment years, on the very next day after the draft assessment orders were sent. While the approval mentioned perusal of relevant assessment records, it was silent on which specific records or seized material were examined. The Tribunal found it improbable to examine 51 assessment records in a single day, leading to the conclusion that the approval was granted mechanically without proper application of mind. This reasoning was supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar and PCIT vs. MDLR Hotels (P) Ltd. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this mechanical approval were vitiated. The assessee's ground challenging the validity of the approval was allowed. As a result, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue for the corresponding assessment years were dismissed. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2014-15 was also dismissed for parity of reasons.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenses incurred as per regulatory mandate, for disaster rehabilitation, were allowable for assessment years prior to the introduction of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1). It also held that interest income on FDRs and Bonds had a direct nexus to the assessee's business of providing finance for housing and infrastructure development.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically for numerous cases and assessment years in a single day without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently followed its accounting method and incurred the expenditure wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Assessing Officer's ad-hoc disallowance of 90% of the expenditure was considered arbitrary, especially since he himself allowed 10%.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically for numerous cases and assessment years in a single day without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax granted approval for 51 cases, including the assessee's for multiple assessment years, on a single day (December 28, 2018). The Tribunal found that this manner of approval was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, citing the impossibility of examining 51 cases in one day. The approval order was silent on which specific assessment records or seized material were examined. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decisions in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar and PCIT vs. MDLR Hotels (P) Ltd., which held that single approvals granted mechanically for multiple assessment years and multiple assessees are invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were vitiated. The assessee's ground of appeal concerning the validity of the Section 153D approval was allowed. As this legal issue was decided in favour of the assessee, other grounds became academic. The appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2015-16 to 2017-18 were allowed. The appeals of the Revenue for the corresponding assessment years, and for AY 2014-15, were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically for numerous cases and assessment years in a single day without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider the CBDT Circular No. 11/2008, which dealt with charitable activities of entities operating on principles of mutuality. The Tribunal noted that cooperative societies are distinct entities and the rules under Rule 17A should not disentitle them from registration if their purpose is charitable as per the Act. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that adding the Rs. 101 crores on-money admission over and above the special auditor's quantification was a double addition and directed its deletion. Additions related to unsecured loans and unexplained investments were to be treated as business turnover and assessed at 20%.
The Tribunal held that adding the Rs. 101 crores on-money admission over and above the special auditor's quantification was a double addition and directed its deletion. Additions related to unsecured loans and unexplained investments were to be treated as business turnover and assessed at 20%.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically for numerous cases and assessment years in a single day without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were vitiated.
The Tribunal accepted the Ld. AR's contention that the actual tax effect of the CIT(A)'s order was Rs. 50,52,498/-, which is below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs for filing appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT, as per CBDT Circulars. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The reasoning was that the approval was granted for 51 cases, including multiple assessment years for the assessee, on a single day (December 28, 2018). The Tribunal found it improbable that such a large number of cases could be properly examined and approved within a single day, indicating a mechanical exercise of power without independent application of mind. The Tribunal noted that while the approval mentioned perusal of records, it was silent on which specific records were examined. This manner of approval was deemed to vitiate the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal relied on the precedents set by the Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar and PCIT vs. MDLR Hotels (P) Ltd. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal did not deliberate on other grounds of appeal as the primary legal issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically for numerous cases and assessment years in a single day without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that since the basis of the penalty levy under Section 271(1)(c) is under settlement, it is expedient to delete the penalty. The appeal is allowed subject to conditions related to the settlement of the main dispute.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically for numerous cases and assessment years in a single day without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on this invalid approval were vitiated.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of TDS and Self Assessment Tax credit was limited. The Department agreed to restore the issue to the AO for verification. Ground no. 6 of the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, relying on multiple coordinate bench decisions, held that the filing of Form 67 is a procedural/directory requirement, not a mandatory one that would lead to disallowance for delay. It directed the Assessing Officer to accept the belatedly filed Form 67 and allow the Foreign Tax Credit after due verification.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a change of opinion and were beyond the time limitation prescribed, as there was no new information. Furthermore, the AO sought to apply circulars retrospectively, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing the Assessee an opportunity to be heard and without deciding all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 143(2) was not in the prescribed format as per CBDT Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. As the CBDT instructions are mandatory and binding, the notice was considered invalid, rendering the subsequent assessment proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) if he disagreed with the assessee's registered valuer's report. Using circle rates or L&DO conversion rates without a DVO report is not permissible under the Act.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable as income from other sources, following amendments to the Income Tax Act and jurisdictional High Court decisions. The addition made by the AO was confirmed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground of appeal concerning the non-adjudication of an additional ground about protective addition. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to take a report from the AO on factual aspects regarding unexplained items and decide afresh, sustaining the revenue's grounds for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was without jurisdiction as it predated the notification of the faceless assessment scheme. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed null and void.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued prior to the mandatory approval under Section 151. Therefore, the notice and the consequential assessment order were bad in law and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the tax authorities selectively doubted the genuineness of investments without properly examining the substantial evidence provided by the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. Inquiry reports were not confronted to the assessee, and reliance on broad assumptions about shell companies was not sufficient.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming an addition of Rs.4,20,000/- after allowing relief for gifts and sale of a car, and directed that tax under Section 115BBE be charged at 30%.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity for hearing and filing evidence.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under the old Section 148 on or after April 1, 2021, without following the new procedure under Section 148A, is bad in law. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Rajesh Chopra vs. ITO.
The Tribunal held that the source of cash deposits was proved by the assessee's cash book and audited balance sheet, deleting the addition. It also allowed commission expenses as transfer expenses for capital gains calculation.
The Tribunal found that Madhya Pradesh Today Media Company is not functionally similar to the assessee as it is engaged in the newspaper business. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude this company from the list of comparables and recompute the Arm's Length Price. If the assessee's margin falls within the range after recomputation, no adjustment should be made.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under the old Section 148 on or after April 1, 2021, without following the new procedure under Section 148A, is bad in law and unenforceable. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Rajesh Chopra vs. ITO.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under the old Section 148 on April 1, 2021, without following the mandatory procedure under the new Section 148A, is bad in law. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Rajesh Chopra vs. ITO.
The Tribunal noted that the addition on account of unverified sundry creditors, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the concealment penalty on the deleted addition cannot stand.
The Tribunal held that the bank statements relied upon by the assessee before the CIT(A) were not verified. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the bank statements and to pass an order accordingly.
The Tribunal held that prior to July 1, 2016, there was no legal sanctity for Form No. 3CL in quantifying eligible deduction under Section 35(2AB) and deleted the disallowance related to it. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was sustained.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the Assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the delay in issuing TDS certificates was a consequence of delays in TDS deposit and TDS statement filing, for which the assessee had faced other penalties. It found no deliberate defiance of law or contumacious conduct by the assessee, and therefore set aside the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's action of considering total indirect expenses in proportion to export revenue to total revenue was flawed, as these expenses were also necessary for the abandoned project. The Tribunal directed the TPO to accept the assessee's operating margin at 6.24% and disallowed the transfer pricing adjustment.