Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 12 of 14
The Tribunal found that communication gaps could not be ruled out and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the larger interest of justice.
The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings. It was noted that M/s Swastik Traders was engaged in providing bogus purchase entries of agricultural produce.
The Tribunal held that the receipts on account of repair and overhaul services amounting to Rs. 471,64,50,980/- received by the assessee were not liable to be taxed as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) in the hands of the assessee for the subject year. The Tribunal reasoned that the Assessing Officer had not established that the technical knowledge utilized for these services was transferred to the customer to make them self-sufficient or reliant in using the technology, nor that the customer derived an enduring benefit and utilized the knowledge or know-how independently in the future without the aid of the service provider. The Tribunal noted that the technical knowledge, skills, etc., did not remain with the customer even after the contract ended. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the business is not run with a charity motive, and the assessee would not make available its technical expertise to Indian customers to create competitors unless paid for it, which the revenue failed to demonstrate. Relying on the coordinate bench decisions in Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. v. DCIT and Rockwell Collins Southeast Asia Pte Ltd v. DCIT, which dealt with similar facts and the 'make available' clause in respective DTAAs, the Tribunal deleted the addition. Grounds no. 4 to 4.5 of the appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, which was passed pursuant to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation-3), Delhi, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not be sustained because the said Section 263 order had been set aside by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1067/Del/2022 by its order dated March 9, 2023. The Tribunal found no error or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who had allowed the appeal of the assessee. The reasoning was that the foundation of the assessment order was the Section 263 order, and once that foundation was removed by the Tribunal's earlier decision, the assessment order derived no legal validity. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merits in the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue and dismissed the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that the assessee possessed documents that could establish a nexus between the interest outgo and the business. However, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not clearly established this nexus. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings were set aside and remanded for de-novo assessment, any default in the assessment proceedings is relegated. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the penalty order and the CIT(A)'s order were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that it is undisputed that the assessee filed its return of income in response to a notice under Section 148, and the assessment was completed accepting the returned income. Crucially, the entire tax liability of Rs. 1,06,80,699/- on the assessed income was discharged by way of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), as reflected in the 26AS statement. Therefore, as per the computation mechanism provided in Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c), the amount of tax sought to be evaded was NIL. In the absence of any tax sought to be evaded, the penalty levied by the AO was not justified and could not be sustained. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision in deleting the penalty to be justified and upheld it. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.07.2022, was issued beyond the period of limitation, rendering it invalid. Consequently, all assessment proceedings arising from this invalid notice were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as there was no mention of notice issuance and service on the assessee. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is beyond the prescribed time limit, especially considering the relaxation provisions (TOLA) and amendments to sections 147-151 by the Finance Act, 2021. Relying on precedents, the notice was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was not validly served as it was issued to an incorrect address after the assessee's retirement, and service by affixture was also improper. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were invalid and made in violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal decided the appeals based on a preliminary legal issue. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal noted that the final assessment order was passed without issuing a draft assessment order, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 144C(1) of the Act. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment order for AY 2020-21 on this ground. For AY 2021-22, the Tribunal observed that the facts were identical to AY 2020-21 and that the DRP had issued similar directions. Therefore, following its decision for AY 2020-21, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment order for AY 2021-22 as well, as it was passed without a draft assessment order. As the final assessment orders were quashed on this legal issue, all other grounds on merits for both assessment years were rendered academic and were left undecided. The stay application for AY 2021-22 was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a proper adjudication and without issuing a notice to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with the AO, and the appeal should have been decided on merits or remanded.
The Tribunal quashed the final assessment order for AY 2021-22 because it was passed without a draft assessment order, similar to the decision for AY 2020-21. Consequently, other grounds on merits became academic and were left open.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of the purchases by providing substantial evidence. The AO failed to make independent inquiries to rebut this evidence, thus the additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's final assessment order was passed in violation of the binding directions of the DRP, constituting a gross violation of statutory provisions. Therefore, the final assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the valuation report from a Chartered Accountant, based on Net Asset Value method as per Rule 11UA(1)(b), is valid for Section 50CA. Since the sale consideration exceeded the fair market value determined by this report, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot change the valuation method chosen by the assessee (DCF method) and that the assessee had provided sufficient details for the valuation. Projections in DCF method cannot be compared with actuals to reject the valuation.
The Tribunal held that the seven comparable companies identified for the distribution segment were not functionally similar and should be excluded. It also ruled that no adjustment was warranted for interest on overdue receivables, as working capital adjustments subsume such impacts.
The Tribunal held that no evidence of commission payment was found, and the sale deeds alone did not prove brokerage. Regarding the cash expenditure, the Tribunal noted that the expenses were owned up by another individual, Shri Subhash Chaudhary, and that the Settlement Commission had also ruled no further addition was required in this regard. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to examine the assessee's contentions regarding the typographical error in employee's contribution to PF/ESI, the timely payment of such contribution, and the addition of deferred tax under MAT provisions.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing order dated 30.10.2023, the draft assessment order dated 27.12.2023, and the final assessment order dated 30.10.2024 for AY 2021-22 were passed in the name of FAL, a non-existent entity, despite the assessee providing intimation of the merger with GTIPL. The Tribunal found that the assessee had repeatedly informed the authorities about the amalgamation and provided all necessary documents. Following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that orders passed in the name of a non-existent company, despite being informed by the assessee, are bad in law and void ab initio. The decisions relied upon by the Revenue were distinguished as not applicable. Consequently, the Transfer Pricing order, draft assessment order, and final assessment order were quashed. All other grounds on merits were left undecided as they became academic. The operative direction was to quash the impugned orders.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide details on how the cash figures were bifurcated and that the claim of the assessee regarding the cash belonging to group companies, especially M/s Goyal M G Gases (P.) Ltd., could not be denied without contrary material. Since no addition was made in the hands of M/s Goyal M G Gases (P.) Ltd. despite its substantial cash in hand, the addition made in the assessee's hands was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of the purchases by providing substantial evidence. The AO failed to make independent inquiries to rebut this evidence, thus the additions made were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was incorrect in initiating proceedings under section 263. The AO had taken a plausible view by adding 12.5% of the purchases, supported by judicial precedents. Furthermore, the GST authorities had accepted the purchases, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, which the PCIT failed to properly examine. The Tribunal noted that the appellate authority has the power to enhance income if required.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition as the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence and explanation regarding the source of investment. The Tribunal found that the cash transactions introduced by the assessee were bogus.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to an advance from Nihon Impex Pvt Ltd was justified based on the evidence and the assessment of Nihon Impex. The Tribunal also addressed other additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Considering the grounds raised by the assessee regarding violation of principles of natural justice and the merits of the additions, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2017-18 should have been made under Section 153C, not Section 143(3), as the seized material was handed over to the jurisdictional AO on March 26, 2019. The AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 143(3) was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were illegal and unsustainable. It followed the principle of binding precedents, particularly the decisions in the cases of co-sellers where similar additions based on the same diary were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,83,000/- as the assessee had submitted sufficient evidence of land ownership and agricultural use. The revenue failed to provide any contrary evidence to support its grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the lower tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to substantiate their findings that the transactions were bogus. The assessee had discharged the initial onus by showing that shares were purchased online, payments were made through banking channels, and sale consideration was received through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was seized during the search proceedings under section 153C, and the addition was made solely on the basis of cash deposits. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's evidence without proper justification.
The Tribunal found that the applications were rejected without due consideration and non-application of mind. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the applications were rejected without due consideration and non-application of mind. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity after amalgamation is void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The jurisdictional defect is not curable under the Act. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the appeal, arising from an assessment order by the Assessment Unit, should have been filed before the ITAT Indore. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to an advance from Nihon Impex Pvt. Ltd. was justified based on the evidence and the assessment of Nihon Impex. The Tribunal also addressed other additions related to cash deposits and loans.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to provide cogent material to sustain the addition. The assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing evidence of share purchase, payment through banking channels, dematerialization, and sale proceeds received via banking channels.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not considered the issue of delayed ROI being attributable to the Covid pandemic. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee had not been given adequate opportunities by the lower authorities to present its case. Observing that the lower authorities' orders were sketchy, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication de novo, ensuring the assessee is given proper opportunities to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the commission expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning business income. The doubts raised by the tax authorities were based on conjectures and surmises, and the conditions of Section 37 of the Act were fulfilled. Certain other disallowances related to employment and business promotion expenses were also partly or fully allowed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's books of account were not rejected and no defects were found in the stock register or quantitative details, the additions made by the tax authorities were not justified. The ad-hoc disallowance by the CIT(A) was also considered contrary to its own findings.
The Tribunal held that when estimating income based on GP rate, the average of the past five years' GP rate should be applied, not just the preceding year's rate. For business promotion expenses, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) may have admitted additional evidence without proper procedure, remanding the issue to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The credit note was also considered a legitimate business adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of shares as part of a family realignment, when proved to be real, genuine, and valid, does not give rise to assessable income. Since the department had accepted similar decisions in the case of the donee company, a different view could not be taken for the donor company.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,58,98,000/- made under Section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment deserves to be deleted. The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) placed on record a certificate from SBI, Barara, Ambala branch, dated 18.03.2026. This certificate confirmed that FDRs were created in 2017 and 2018, maturing in May and June 2019, with a total maturity amount of Rs. 1,63,73,813/-. The Tribunal found that the source of the FDRs of Rs. 1,58,98,000/- created during the year under consideration was demonstrably from this maturity amount. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had established the source of the investments. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the jurisdictional grounds raised in grounds 1, 2, and 3, as the substantive issue of the addition was resolved in favour of the assessee. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause shown by the assessee. However, the additional grounds for admission were not admitted as the assessee's counsel could not substantiate the claim of non-compliance with mandatory conditions under Sections 147 to 151. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(3) as the assessee failed to provide evidence for the claim under Rule 6DD and lacked confirmation from M/s Uflex Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to reasonable cause shown by the assessee. However, the additional grounds for admission were not admitted as the assessee's counsel could not substantiate the claim of non-compliance with mandatory conditions under Sections 147 to 151. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(3) as the assessee failed to provide evidence for the claim under Rule 6DD and lacked confirmation from M/s Uflex Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the denial of FTC solely on the ground of belatedly filing Form 67 is not justified, as the filing of Form 67 is a directory and procedural requirement, not a mandatory one. The Tribunal followed its coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, directing the AO to condone the delay and allow the FTC claim.