Loading ITAT cases…
1,215 orders · Page 24 of 25
The tribunal reiterated its previous remand directions for the Section 14A disallowance. For the surcharge issue, the tribunal followed the precedent set by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and previous tribunal orders, directing the deletion of the addition but also instructing the AO to verify when the surcharge was realized and offered as income.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by the limitation period specified under Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal, following judicial precedents including decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court, noted that similar issues in the assessee's own cases were remanded for fresh consideration. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's orders disallowing the exemption.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before the Ld. CIT(A) despite opportunities and notices, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication, directing the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order.
The Tribunal, following judicial precedents including decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court, noted that similar issues in the assessee's own cases were remanded for fresh consideration. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's orders disallowing the exemption.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to submit complete details.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's reasons for delay and the exceptional circumstances, including the pandemic. The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a fair hearing.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and also a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and also a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit for completing the assessment after receiving directions from the DRP. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed as void ab initio.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the reassessment notice issued without the proper approval from the specified authority under Section 151 was invalid. Consequently, all consequential proceedings and the reassessment order were rendered void.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent use of CUP and RPM methods for benchmarking, which were accepted in subsequent years and in previous assessment years. The Tribunal also considered the procedural aspect of the TPO not issuing a show cause notice for service fee adjustments.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition appeal had already been allowed by the CIT(A) on 09.06.2025. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.06.2025, which confirmed the penalty order dated 07.08.2023, was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 68 and Section 69C were unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence, including confirmations, ITR acknowledgments, bank statements, and audited financials of the lender, to discharge its onus under Section 68. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the loan had been repaid in subsequent years, which distinguished the case from those relied upon by the revenue. The repayment of the loan was considered a significant factor that dispelled any apprehension of the transaction being a disguise or involving extraneous affairs. The Tribunal also noted that the lender had filed its return of income, encompassing the transaction with the assessee, and that the revenue had accepted the lender's existence and passed assessment orders for AY 2017-18 without questioning its capacity to advance loans. In light of these facts, the Tribunal found no reason to treat the loan as unexplained credit. The Tribunal also stated that it was not inclined to examine the nuances of challenges to jurisdiction, approval, invocation of Section 147 instead of Section 153C, and absence of DIN, given the favorable view on merits. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the additions made by the AO were reversed and cancelled.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had extensively dealt with the matter, considering the AO's observations and the assessee's evidence, along with judicial precedents. The CIT(A)'s conclusion that the AO's grounds for disallowance were not sustainable was found to be based on correct facts and legal reliance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Fixed Place PE or Supervisory PE in India. The Tribunal found that the property in goods passed outside India, and the sale was concluded offshore, thus no income accrued or arose to the assessee in India.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of Section 14A disallowance was recurring and reiterated past remand directions for re-computation. For the surcharge issue, the Tribunal held that surcharge on delayed payments, if not paid or recovered and is disputable, is not taxable as it does not represent real income, even if an entry is made in books. The Tribunal followed previous decisions, including High Court judgments, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions but consider the claim for taxability when surcharge is realized and offered as income.
The Tribunal held that the payments for milestone achievements were inextricably linked to the supply of rolling stock and did not constitute Fee for Technical Services. Interest under Section 234B was also not leviable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide a detailed calculation to substantiate that the business losses were derived without claiming any ineligible deductions under Section 115BAA(2)(i). The Tribunal also noted the CIT(A) had concurred with the assessee without sufficient evidence of production before the AO. In the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the AO for limited verification.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while sourcing from unregistered dealers is possible in the assessee's business, the purchases in question were treated as bogus. Considering various judicial precedents with divergent views, the Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance at 6% of the disputed purchase amounts.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while sourcing from unregistered dealers is possible in the assessee's business, the purchases in question were treated as bogus. Considering various judicial precedents with divergent views, the Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance at 6% of the disputed purchase amounts.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while sourcing from unregistered dealers is possible in the assessee's business, the purchases in question were treated as bogus. Considering various judicial precedents with divergent views, the Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance at 6% of the disputed purchase amounts.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while sourcing from unregistered dealers is possible in the assessee's business, the purchases in question were treated as bogus. Considering various judicial precedents with divergent views, the Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance at 6% of the disputed purchase amounts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for bogus purchases, finding that suppliers confirmed the claims and the AO's remand report did not contain adverse comments. The addition for closing stock was also deleted as the assessee provided reconciliation and verification.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the AO under Section 50C of the Act while processing the Income Tax Return under Section 143(1) of the Act is illegal. Following the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in Inder Jeet Malik (supra) and Amit Sabharwal (supra), the Tribunal reiterated that no adjustment or addition under Section 50C of the Act can be made while processing the return under Section 143(1). The reasoning was that Section 50C involves a deeming provision with sub-sections that grant the assessee a right to object to the stamp duty value by referring the matter to the DVO. Making such an adjustment at the 143(1) stage deprives the assessee of this valuable statutory right. Therefore, the adjustment made by the AO under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) was unsustainable. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal were accepted, and the addition was deleted. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind by the AO and lacked a live link to escapement of income. Regarding purchases, the Tribunal found the selective disallowance to be without basis, as the purchases were supported by valid documents and payments.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment was selected for limited scrutiny based on specific criteria. The Pr.CIT initiated proceedings on an issue not covered by the original selection criteria. Therefore, the provisions of Section 263 were not applicable, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition without establishing facts and evidence, as the seized documents did not belong to the appellant, lacked signatures, and no statement under section 132 was obtained. The AO also failed to rebut the assessee's explanation that the entries were booking receipts and part of their books of accounts, and did not offer cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act was unsustainable as it is a definition section and not a charging section. Even if the CIT(A) considered it as business income under section 28(i), the assessee was not in such a business.
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-examine the transfer pricing adjustments by considering the business segments separately. Regarding non-compete fees, the AO was instructed to treat it as revenue expenditure and work out the depreciation treatment in light of the Supreme Court's judgment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 26.03.2002 passed under Section 158BC was barred by limitation under Section 158BE(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the first and last authorization for search was executed on 17.12.1999. Based on this, the block assessment should have been completed by 31.12.2001. Even considering the operation of the locker on 27.03.2000, or the order under Section 132(3) passed on 17.12.1999 which has a maximum validity of 60 days (expiring on 17.02.2000) unless extended, the two-year period for assessment would fall in February 2002. Since there was no indication of extension for the Section 132(3) order, the assessment order dated 26.03.2002 was found to be beyond the prescribed limitation period and thus void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and quashed the impugned assessment order. All other grounds of appeal concerning the merits of the additions became academic. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that no adjustment can be made on account of interest on delayed receivables as the assessee is a debt-free company and its working capital margin was significantly higher than that of comparable entities. The issue of TDS credit was directed to be given as per law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's belief was not bonafide, as the TRCs were either wrongly issued or issued for a subsequent period. The Tribunal found that ABN AMRO's headquarters were in the Netherlands, and the TRC for Holstein was obtained after the payment was made.
The Tribunal held that the order u/s 148A(d) and the subsequent notice u/s 148 were issued without the mandatory approval of the PCCIT/CCIT as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UOI & Ors. Vs Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal found these actions liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals due to delay but also discussed the merits, which is contrary to judicial discipline. The Tribunal found that the assessment and penalty proceedings were ex-parte. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with due opportunities.
The Tribunal noted that although the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A), the order was passed without waiting for the assessee's response to the last notice. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals due to delay but also discussed the merits, which is contrary to judicial discipline. The Tribunal found that the assessment and penalty proceedings were ex-parte. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee with due opportunities.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had been a consistent income tax payee assessed at the maximum marginal rate and had filed supportive evidence explaining the sources of cash and accumulated savings from preceding assessment years. While the Revenue insisted on the assessee's onus to prove facts to the satisfaction of the lower authorities, the Tribunal, considering the factual backdrop and social customs, found that a full addition of Rs. 54.13 lakhs was not justified. The Tribunal held that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs would be just and proper in the given facts, with the rider that this decision should not be treated as a precedent. Consequently, the assessee was granted relief of Rs. 49.13 lakhs. All other issues between the parties were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal considered that the CIT(E) proceeded ex-parte and there might have been communication gaps between the assessee and their counsel. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte and the assessee did not present any explanation or evidence. However, considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee is in the construction business and that some cash turnover is possible, with no dispute regarding the corresponding sales. It noted that various recent judicial precedents have decided the issue of bogus purchases with divergent views. Faced with these facts and divergent views, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to allow a lumpsum disallowance at 6% of the alleged bogus purchases for both assessment years. This disallowance amounts to Rs. 3,40,17,291 in AY 2020-21 and Rs. 23,79,987 in AY 2021-22. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computations are to follow as per law. No other ground or argument was pressed.
The appeals were found to be defective as the CIT(A) order was not certified and the grounds of appeal were not signed by the assessee. The assessee was also absent when called.
The appeals were found to be defective as the CIT(A) order was not certified and the grounds of appeal were not signed by the assessee. The assessee was also absent when called.
The Tribunal held that the Form 56F was filed within the extended period granted by the CBDT, and the disallowance by the CPC was due to a technical error. The amended proviso to Section 10AA(ii), which requires filing the return by the due date, was effective from April 1, 2024, and thus not applicable to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal, acknowledging a prior order that remitted the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with proper opportunity and evidence, decided to remit the current appeal to the CIT(E). This is to consider the approval under Section 80G(5) afresh, which is consequential to the grant of registration under Section 12A(1). The CIT(E) is directed to provide an opportunity of being heard and consider all evidence.
The Tribunal found that the TPO's selected comparables were not proper. It directed the AO/TPO to re-benchmark the royalty payment transaction afresh, considering the bundled services, and to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard. If exact comparables for the CUP method are not found, TNMM should be used.
The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and not taxable as income from other sources. The decision in Mahender Pal Narang was distinguished, and the Supreme Court's ruling in Ghanshyam HUF was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that while some marketing expenses might be allowable, the entire amount paid to the AE was not justified without proper documentation. Regarding the provision for refunds, the Tribunal remanded the issue for a detailed examination of past provisions versus actual refunds.