Loading ITAT cases…
441 orders · Page 1 of 9
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground raised by the assessee is sustained. The Tribunal found that while the AO relied on different incriminating evidence for different additions, a common approval under Section 153D for multiple assessment years indicated that the approval was not granted for 'each assessment year' as required by law. This practice suggests a mechanical exercise of power. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, which in turn relied on the Allahabad High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Sapna Gupta, holding that a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years is vitiated. Consequently, the impugned approvals under Section 153D and the consequent assessment orders were held to be vitiated and not in accordance with the law. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned assessments were quashed.
For Heidrick & Struggles Australia Pty. Ltd. (ITA No. 1742/Del/2025), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition. The Tribunal found that the foreign service providers were not making available technical skills and knowledge to the Indian entity, thus the fees did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or royalties under the DTAA. Consequently, no income was deemed to accrue or arise in India, and Section 195 of the Act was not applicable. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds. For Heidrick & Struggles Inc. (ITA No. 1743/Del/2025), regarding corporate allocation charges, the Tribunal found insufficient factual determination by the AO to conclusively establish satisfaction of the 'make-available' clause under the India-USA DTAA. Citing precedents like AECOM Intercontinental Holdings UK Ltd. vs. ITO, the Tribunal noted the AO's finding was broad but lacked specific evidence on the 'make-available' aspect. Therefore, this issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. The judgment noted that other grounds were consequential or premature and not specifically adjudicated.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
For Heidrick & Struggles Australia Pty. Ltd. (ITA No. 1742/Del/2025), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition. The Tribunal found that the foreign service providers were not making available technical skills and knowledge to the Indian entity, thus the fees did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or royalties under the DTAA. Consequently, no income was deemed to accrue or arise in India, and Section 195 of the Act was not applicable. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds. For Heidrick & Struggles Inc. (ITA No. 1743/Del/2025), regarding corporate allocation charges, the Tribunal found insufficient factual determination by the AO to conclusively establish satisfaction of the 'make-available' clause under the India-USA DTAA. Citing precedents like AECOM Intercontinental Holdings UK Ltd. vs. ITO, the Tribunal noted the AO's finding was broad but lacked specific evidence on the 'make-available' aspect. Therefore, this issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. The judgment noted that other grounds were consequential or premature and not specifically adjudicated.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessees' consistent failure to appear before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and before the Tribunal itself, despite multiple notices and opportunities. The Tribunal observed that the assessees sought adjournments to buy time. However, considering the seriousness of the issues and the high-pitched additions, and to prevent a miscarriage of justice due to the cases not being considered in their proper perspective, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to consider the existing evidence or any further evidence required. The CIT(A) may also call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if necessary. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on each assessee, payable within 15 days to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, and stipulated that the CIT(A) would proceed with the appeals only upon production of the receipt of cost payment. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessees do not cooperate with the CIT(A), the authority is at liberty to proceed with the appeals as per law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form-10B was condoned by the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, the AO should have considered the claim for exemption under section 11. The appeal is restored to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the claim in accordance with law.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's addition was on a protective basis, while Mr. Rajan's appeal involved a substantive addition. Both appeals should be heard together. Therefore, the appeal was restored back to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for a joint hearing with Mr. Rajan's appeal.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are not in the nature of rent but are contractual payments for services rendered. Therefore, TDS on such charges is deductible under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act at 2%, not under Section 194-I at 10%. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in similar cases.
The Tribunal has not provided a decision on the merits of the appeal or the specific issues raised. The provided text is merely the cause title and the constitution of the bench for the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings, reasoning, ratio, and operative directions are not available in this excerpt. No issue has been expressly left undecided as no decision has been rendered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits, which were traced back to compensation for land acquisition. The explanation of withdrawals from one bank and subsequent deposits into another was also deemed satisfactory.
The ITAT admitted additional evidence furnished by the assessee and deemed it crucial for adjudication. The Tribunal found that these additional evidences require factual verification by the AO.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit additional evidence and did not discuss it in the order. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and the matter proceeded ex-parte. Considering the possibility of communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee is given three opportunities to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee received ₹1.18 crores in cash as an advance for the sale of agricultural land, which was confirmed by the sale deed. The assessee had sufficient cash balance to explain the cash deposit in the bank account. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 was based on incorrect facts. The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded for reopening suffered from factual inaccuracies and a lack of independent application of mind by the AO and the approving authority, thus rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal found no valid reasons to reverse the CIT(A)'s findings, which were based on the fact that the agreement to sell was not proven to be executed and the subsequent sale was to a different party.
The Tribunal found that the diary entry mentioning Rs. 5 lakhs with alphabet 'C' indicated a cheque transaction, not cash. The assessee provided bank statements showing no such receipt and explained the entry related to a different entity named 'Automation'.
The assessee explained that his non-appearance before the CIT(A) was due to his father's critical illness. The Tribunal found merit in this explanation and decided to grant the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex-parte without going into the merits. Considering the facts and the undertaking provided by the assessee to cooperate and comply with future notices, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the file of the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that after the amendment effective from 01.04.1989, an assessee only needs to prove that bad debts were written off as irrecoverable in the books of account and that the income was offered to tax. These conditions were satisfied in this case, as acknowledged by the AO.
The Tribunal found that the diary entry mentioning Rs. 5 lakhs with alphabet 'C' indicated a cheque transaction, not cash. The assessee provided bank statements showing no such receipt and explained the entry related to a different entity named 'Automation'.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished the requisite documents to discharge its primary onus under Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the basis of the addition by the AO was the action of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the director of M/s Arora Fincap Ltd, which led the AO to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. However, when directed to furnish any report or information from the ED or any other source available with the AO that indicated the impugned transactions were found to be non-genuine by the ED, no such information was available. The Tribunal concluded that the initial onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicant company and the genuineness of the transaction had been duly discharged by the assessee. In the absence of any further inquiry by the AO to conclude that the impugned transactions were non-genuine, the addition made under Section 68 could not be sustained. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- was deleted. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any issue related to the ED's action itself, focusing solely on whether the AO had sufficient material to make the addition under Section 68.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had discharged its onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders. The CIT(A) had passed a speaking order and rightly deleted the addition under section 68. Regarding the disallowance under section 14A, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO's disallowance of Rs. 15,58,474/- over and above the assessee's suo motu disallowance was incorrect and rightly deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution without deciding the grounds on merits. The DR did not object to restoring the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Delhi for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was within the condonable period as per the Supreme Court's directions. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 32 days, acknowledging it was not intentional. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was not registered under Section 12A for the assessment year in question, it was eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The procedural defect of filing in ITR-5 instead of ITR-7 was considered a minor issue.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 was invalid as it was obtained from both the Additional CIT and PCIT, when only the PCIT's approval was required for reopening beyond four years. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment are void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note recorded for multiple assessment years is bad in law and void ab initio, leading to a fundamentally flawed assumption of jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment framed based on such a note is also invalid.
The Tribunal found that all issues raised in the present appeals were covered by its own earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19. Based on these precedents, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for power and fuel expenses and the restriction of disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income. Similarly, the disallowance for technical services fees was also found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not clearly determined whether the additions were based on specific seized material. Therefore, the assessee's appeals ITA Nos. 479 & 480/Del/2017 and the consequential penalty cases ITA Nos. 6358 & 6365/Del/2019 were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The CIT(A) erred in restoring the addition on merits to the AO without deciding the jurisdictional issues. It is mandatory to adjudicate jurisdictional issues before proceeding to decide on merits.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC decided the issue ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, and similarly, the assessment orders were framed ex-parte. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not clearly determined whether the additions were based on specific seized material. Therefore, the assessee's appeals ITA Nos. 479 & 480/Del/2017 and the consequential penalty cases ITA Nos. 6358 & 6365/Del/2019 were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and omnibus, lacking application of mind. Therefore, the assessment orders were vitiated and quashed.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, being a mandatory obligation under the Companies Act, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80G or Section 35(2AA) of the Income Tax Act. Allowing such deductions would reduce the actual CSR spending and was not the legislative intent.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC decided the issue ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, and similarly, the assessment orders were framed ex-parte. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision regarding the validity of the satisfaction note recorded for initiating Section 153C proceedings. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had used statutory expressions interchangeably, which is not in accordance with a stricter interpretation of the law.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of profit by the CIT(A) at 10% was justified given the circumstances. However, interest income from fixed deposits, integral to the business's working capital, should be treated as part of business receipts and subjected to the same estimation rate.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and omnibus, lacking application of mind. Therefore, the assessment orders were vitiated and quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not clearly determined whether the additions were based on specific seized material. Therefore, the assessee's appeals ITA Nos. 479 & 480/Del/2017 and the consequential penalty cases ITA Nos. 6358 & 6365/Del/2019 were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.