Loading ITAT cases…
1,215 orders · Page 22 of 25
The Tribunal found that the approval under section 153D was granted mechanically and did not reflect an independent application of mind by the approving authority. This mechanical approval, especially concerning the reliance on digital evidence without proper examination, vitiates the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(37) of the Act as the land was urban agricultural land and was compulsorily acquired by the Haryana Government. The CIT(A) had rightly granted relief to the assessee, and the AO had misunderstood the facts.
The Tribunal held that collection charges are not directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and upheld the addition. However, interest income on funds connected to aircraft operations and commission income from domestic legs of international travel were held to be exempt under Article 8 of the India-France DTAA.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had reversed revenue from earlier years as a prior period item, which was allowed by the AO and CIT(A). The addition was solely due to the change in accounting method and represented a timing difference with no tax impact, as the tax rate remained the same. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that subsequent decisions in favour of the assessee, including the quashing of a penalty under Section 271B, considered the explanation for cash deposits to be satisfactory under Section 69A. These decisions negated the Assessing Officer's contentions regarding the unexplained nature of the deposits.
The Tribunal held that collection charges are not income directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and upheld the addition. For the revenue's grounds, the Tribunal referred to its own prior decisions which held that technical handling income and interest income connected to aircraft operations are covered under Article 8 of the India-France DTAA.
The Tribunal, relying on various landmark precedents, held that the approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even when dealing with a single assessee. Therefore, the combined approval for all ten years was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO issued the notice u/s 148 (new regime) on 19.07.2022, which was beyond the permissible time limit of 09.07.2022, as calculated based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the notice was time-barred.
The Tribunal considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sarthak Gupta vs. ITO and IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT. It was held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 26.07.2022 was barred by limitation.
The Tribunal noted that subsequent decisions in favour of the assessee, considering explanations satisfactory for Section 69A, negated the Assessing Officer's contentions. The grounds raised in the appeals were sustained based on these prior findings.
The Tribunal observed that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year. The alleged escaped income was Rs. 35,00,000/-, which is below the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- required for reassessment beyond three years under Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening was vitiated.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee had met the initial burden of proof by providing primary evidence such as invoices, e-way bills, and stock registers. Since the assessee's sales were accepted, the Tribunal held that the purchases must also be accepted, and Section 69C could not be invoked based solely on suspicion regarding the suppliers.
The Tribunal held that a sum credited to the sales account cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 if it is already included in the total sales declared and taxed. The Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of accounts or the sales shown by the assessee. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal restored the issues of unexplained investment in property and cost of improvement to the AO for further inquiry. The addition for website services was upheld, and the addition for cash deposits was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 153C is bad in law and void ab initio because no incriminating material was found during the search that related to the assessee. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, additions cannot be made under Section 153C without such material.
The Tribunal observed that the Revenue contended the CIT(A) did not pass a well-reasoned order and erred in deleting additions without proper verification of documents. The assessee's representative argued that the CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned. The Tribunal decided to re-examine the issues at the CIT(A)'s level for natural justice.
The CIT(A) admitted additional evidences furnished by the assessee and sought a remand report from the AO. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee provided complete documentary evidence proving the genuineness of the advances received from customers, and thus deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its powers by directing the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The authority of the CIT(A) ended with deleting the addition, and directing further proceedings was considered ultra vires.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its powers by directing the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The authority of the CIT(A) ended with deleting the addition, and directing further proceedings was considered ultra vires.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The period of limitation is to be counted from the date the Assessing Officer made a reference for penalty imposition, not from the date of the subsequent show-cause notice.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The period of limitation is to be counted from the date the Assessing Officer made a reference for penalty imposition, not from the date of the subsequent show-cause notice.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred by the head office for the procurement of software and services were allowable as a deduction for the Indian branch office (PE). This was based on the principle that such expenses were mandatory for the branch's business of distributing software and had been accepted by the revenue in past years.
The tribunal held that the approval granted by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax under section 153D of the Act was invalid. The approval was a common one for multiple assessment years, including those under appeal, and was granted without proper application of mind, failing to indicate that the draft orders were perused. This vitiated the entire assessment process.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The period of limitation for imposing penalty is to be reckoned from the date the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings, not from the date of the subsequent show-cause notice by the Additional Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The period of limitation is to be counted from the date the Assessing Officer made a reference for penalty imposition, not from the date of the subsequent show-cause notice.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable in law, even if the departmental authorities were not informed of the assessee's death. This decision was based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling in Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 580 days as the explanation did not indicate mala fide intent and the assessee had not gained anything. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order.
The Tribunal, relying on various landmark precedents, held that the approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even when dealing with a single assessee. Therefore, the combined approval for all ten years was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order confirming additions made by the AO, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the cash payment was made in a prior financial year and thus not taxable in the assessment year in question. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's additional grounds raised under Rule 27.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to supply the material relied upon for initiating proceedings under Section 148A of the Act, and the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, constituted a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued on 26.10.2018, which was beyond the statutory deadline of 30.09.2018. The assessee had provided information via RTI confirming the notice date. The CIT(A) had not adequately addressed this specific ground.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order when the remand report, based on additional evidence, supported the assessee's contentions. The Tribunal found that the additions were not justified based on the AO's own findings in the remand report.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, holding that the notice under Section 143(2) was unsustainable in law. Grounds related to procedural irregularities in initiating proceedings under Section 153C and the validity of the addition were allowed.
The Tribunal held that collection charges are not directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and upheld the addition. However, interest income on funds connected to aircraft operations and commission income from domestic legs of international travel were held to be exempt under Article 8 of the India-France DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the law of limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish the debt itself. The balances of unsecured loans were accepted by the department in previous assessments, and there was no material on record to suggest these loans were waived off.
The Tribunal held that collection charges are not directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and upheld the addition. However, interest income on funds connected to aircraft operations and commission income from domestic legs of international travel were held to be exempt under Article 8 of the India-France DTAA.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, as it stood, was discriminatory when compared to provisions for residents, violating Article 26(3) of the India-USA tax treaty. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal has not yet decided the appeal on merits. The provided text only details the background and procedural aspects of the case, including the reopening of assessment and the AO's observations.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow prior period expenses, stating that crystallized expenses should be allowed even if pertaining to a prior year. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat subsidies and export incentives as capital receipts, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s reasoning.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, respectfully following its coordinate bench's decision in the case of Real Innerspring Technologies (P) Ltd. The Tribunal observed that the AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information from the Investigation Wing and search proceedings in the case of Shri Verma, identifying two companies controlled by accommodation entry providers. The Tribunal noted that the addition was made solely on the allegation that the loans were accommodation entries and the assessee's own money was routed. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had received the unsecured loan through banking channels and repaid it through banking channels. Specifically, the judgment highlighted that the loan was repaid even before the reassessment was initiated. The Tribunal reasoned that when a loan is taken and repaid along with interest through banking channels, it indicates genuine transactions. The assessee utilized the loan for business purposes and repaid it. The Tribunal held that merely because an operator managed affairs does not make all transactions non-genuine, and each transaction must be evaluated on its merit rather than suspicion. The assessee had submitted all supporting documents before the AO, which were merely rejected based on suspicion. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous. The assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence for the agricultural income, making the issue debatable. The AO had taken a plausible view by accepting the evidence, and therefore, the revision proceedings were not warranted. The Tribunal quashed the revision order passed by the PCIT.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross objections for both AY 2015-16 and AY 2013-14. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal followed the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, wherein it was accepted that for AY 2015-16, notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for AY 2015-16 was dismissed as infructuous. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Smart Chip Private Limited, held that the extended limitation period under Section 149(1)(b) could not be invoked in the absence of any material to show that the escaped income was represented in the form of an asset. The Tribunal found that the AO's grounds for reopening involved doubting the genuineness of expenses, which are not assets. Therefore, the impugned notice and proceedings were set aside, and the assessment was quashed. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2013-14 was also dismissed as infructuous. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 for AY 2015-16, issued after April 1, 2021, was barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal, relying on various landmark precedents, held that the approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even when dealing with a single assessee. Therefore, the combined approval for all ten years was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was mechanical and lacked application of mind for each assessment year. The assessment order, being based on this invalid approval, is vitiated.
The Tribunal held that Ground No. 1.2 of the assessee's appeal is partly allowed, directing the TPO/AO to consider the working chart provided by the assessee and provide a detailed margin calculation after hearing the assessee. The Tribunal also allowed Ground No. 1.6.1, stating that the loss on foreign exchange translation related to ECBs should be considered non-operating for the purpose of calculating OPM.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) for reopening the assessment was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the order passed under Section 147 were quashed.
The Tribunal held that loose slips seized during a search operation, containing entries of cash and cheque payments, are admissible evidence. The assessee's claim that these were 'dumb slips' and their subsequent retraction were rejected as an afterthought.
The Tribunal held that loose slips seized during a search operation, containing entries of cash and cheque payments, are admissible evidence. The assessee's claim that these were 'dumb slips' and their subsequent retraction were rejected as an afterthought.