Loading ITAT cases…
918 orders · Page 8 of 19
The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.
The tribunal dismissed the transfer pricing grounds as withdrawn. The disallowance of expatriate salaries was deleted, following a co-ordinate bench decision. The Section 80G deduction issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that a protective assessment of the same amount in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation, as the substantive addition was already confirmed in the hands of SCIPL. Therefore, the departmental appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and noted that the lower appellate order did not effectively comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the reason stated for reopening (escapement of income due to under-reported profits) was not the basis for the additions made in the assessment order (bogus purchases).
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the validity of assessment proceedings due to reference to TPO and contravention of Section 144B was not elaborated upon in the provided text, hence not decided. Regarding the export of manufactured pharmaceutical products, the Tribunal did not provide a specific finding on grounds 3-6 in the provided excerpt. However, concerning the notional interest on outstanding receivables from AEs (grounds 7-12), the Tribunal, following decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts of Delhi and Bombay, and the Hyderabad ITAT, held that overdue receivables from AEs constitute an international transaction and must be benchmarked separately for computing notional interest. The Tribunal directed the TPO to compute interest on outstanding receivable balances from AEs at LIBOR + markup in accordance with Rule 10CB of the Income Tax Rules. For the ICDS adjustment (ground 13), the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to decide it in accordance with the law, allowing it without going into the procedural challenge. The penalty proceedings under Section 270A (ground 14) were dismissed as premature. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps might have occurred due to the virtual hearing mechanism and that there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) erred in making the addition without properly verifying the assessee's books of account and considering the cash sales and opening cash balance. The Tribunal found that the cash sales and deposits were integral to the business, and the addition under Section 68 was not justified, especially considering the nature of the dairy business.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A. It further ruled that the disallowance of bogus expenses was not justified as the AO's observations were not sustainable and the assessee provided necessary documentation. The claim for dormant assets as revenue loss and the increase in work-in-progress were also allowed.
The Tribunal held that since the tax authorities proceeded on the basis of rejected books of account, and the assessee failed to appear or provide contrary evidence, the additions made were justified. The appeal of the assessee was found to have no substance.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to record specific findings for the addition under Section 56(vii)(b). For the unexplained investment, considering the assessee's background, a lump sum addition of Rs. 4 lacs was deemed appropriate, to not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the supplier admitted to being an accommodation entry provider. However, the assessee's sales and books of account were not rejected. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to disallow a lump sum of 10% on the purchases, with the rider that this would not set a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was done in haste without application of mind, making it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to this approval was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee claimed business loss, not Short Term Capital Loss, and the tax effect was below the monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as it did not fall under the exceptions for bogus LTCG/STCL through penny stocks.
The Tribunal affirmed the additions related to gross profit variation (Rs. 8,08,245/-) and unsecured loan (Rs. 10,00,000/-) due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient evidence. However, it deleted the additions concerning administrative/operational expenses (rebate on sales and rent of L-13, totaling Rs. 1,64,219/- and Rs. 1,66,340/- respectively) and the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 45,882/-, recognizing them as legitimate business expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessment year 2012-13 falls beyond the period of 10 years for block assessment proceedings under Section 153C read with Section 153A, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps at various levels could not be ruled out, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps at various levels could not be ruled out, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps at various levels could not be ruled out, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not decide the issue on merit and affirmed the ex-parte order of the AO. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back for denovo assessment.
The tribunal noted that the departmental representative did not dispute the assessee's explanations for the delay. Citing a Supreme Court precedent (Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others), it held that technicalities must yield to substantial justice. Consequently, the tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to plead and prove their case at their own risk.
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering potential communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim, represented by the difference between actual payment and provision, was not clearly reflected in the ITR. However, the factual position regarding this difference went unrebutted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions and disallowances, upholding the principle of consistency. The Tribunal noted that similar issues for prior assessment years had been decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal and the High Court, and the facts remained unchanged.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions and disallowances, upholding the principle of consistency. The Tribunal noted that similar issues for prior assessment years had been decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal and the High Court, and the facts remained unchanged.
The Tribunal held that the AO's belief that the assessee had not filed a return was factually incorrect, as the assessee had indeed filed a return with audited accounts. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits appeared to be aligned with the assessee's business sales, and the reopening was based on an erroneous premise.
The Tribunal held that the addition made solely based on third-party GST information cannot be the sole basis for addition. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to estimate the GP rate at 5% on the admitted total purchase.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is engaged in business with potential cash sales. A Gross Profit component of 10% on the impugned cash deposits was deemed appropriate but not to be treated as a precedent. For assessment under Section 115BBE, it was clarified that it applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal noted that while cash transactions are common in the scrap business, the assessee failed to reconcile its business turnover with the cash deposits. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 3 lacs was deemed just and proper, providing significant relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that marketing, distribution, and frequency marketing program charges, as well as SCHI facility charges, are not taxable as royalty or FTS in India, following consistent past rulings. Similarly, Travel Agent Commission (TACP) was also found not to be in the nature of FTS, aligning with previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A. It further ruled that the disallowance of bogus expenses was not justified as the AO's observations were not sustainable and the assessee provided necessary documentation. The claim for dormant assets as revenue loss and the increase in work-in-progress were also allowed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's case, attributing the cash to withdrawals from his firm, Nikunj Developers. The Revenue's rejection was based on conjectures and surmises, not merits.
The Tribunal held that the amount received was not an unexplained credit as it was received as per a sale agreement and payment schedule spread across multiple years. The claim for deduction u/s 54F was remanded for verification of compliance with all conditions.
The Tribunal, citing the principles from Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, held that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The assessee's appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee proving the case.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 15,20,750 for sundry debtors deserved to be deleted as it's not always possible to get full addresses in the jewelry trade. For the Rs. 9,40,000 purchase, the Tribunal confirmed 10% of the amount (Rs. 94,000) as a disallowance, stating it should not be taken as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were a gift from the assessee's deceased grandmother, who had received rental income in cash and saved it over the years. The Tribunal found the explanation satisfactory and the evidence sufficient.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the AO to reduce additions related to purchases and sales from a specific Hong Kong supplier. It also held that Section 115BBE was not applicable for the assessment year under appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated in the name of the deceased assessee were void ab initio. The failure of the NFAC to consider the facts in the correct perspective and its denial to condone the delay was also noted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given an adequate opportunity of hearing as per the principles of natural justice. For the ends of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It held that the assessee, a senior citizen woman, had adequately explained the source of investment from her husband and sons through credible documents. The Tribunal emphasized that no onus is cast upon the assessee to explain the 'source of source' regarding funds received from family members.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was not in accordance with the law, as it was a common approval for multiple assessment years and lacked specific application of mind to each year's assessment. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The ITAT held that the reopening of assessments was invalid because the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to independently verify the information received and relied on a borrowed satisfaction. The tribunal also noted that a key statement used for reopening was retracted by the deponent before the reasons for reopening were recorded.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was not in accordance with the law, as it was a common approval for multiple assessment years and lacked specific application of mind to each year's assessment. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance in submitting submissions, despite opportunities. Considering the facts and interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically and without proper application of mind, citing precedents from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was not in accordance with the law, as it was a common approval for multiple assessment years and lacked specific application of mind to each year's assessment. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically and without proper application of mind, citing precedents from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was not in accordance with the law, as it was a common approval for multiple assessment years and lacked specific application of mind. Therefore, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was not in accordance with the law, as it was a common approval for multiple assessment years and lacked specific application of mind to each year's assessment. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.