Loading ITAT cases…
958 orders · Page 2 of 20
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271D were not initiated in the corresponding assessment proceedings, which is a fatal flaw. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the transfer pricing adjustments for imported coal (Issue 1): For AY 2021-22, the Tribunal found that the AO/TPO had not followed the DRP's directions. The issue was set aside to the AO/TPO to adjudicate afresh, considering the RPM, the foreign AE as the tested party, excluding comparables as directed by the DRP, considering the assessee's plea for economic adjustment due to Covid-19 and financial difficulties, and the TP adjustment on sales out of opening stock. A fair hearing and speaking order were directed. For AY 2020-21, the judgment excerpt does not explicitly state the finding on this specific issue, but it is implied that it would be handled similarly or is part of the overall set-aside. Regarding interest on receivables (Issue 2): The Tribunal noted the assessee's argument that no interest should be charged if not charged from unrelated customers. However, the fact of whether the assessee charged interest from unrelated customers was not established. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for verification. If no interest was charged from unrelated customers, the AO/TPO was directed not to charge interest from receivables from foreign AEs. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the addition of unsecured loan (Issue 3): The assessee provided details of the loan source from a director and his relatives, with completed assessments for these parties showing no adverse observations. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submissions and directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 25,50,00,000/-. This ground was allowed. Regarding the disallowance of education cess (Issue 4): The judgment states that the issue of penalty under Section 270A on disallowed education cess is consequential in nature. The specific finding on the disallowance itself is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the mention of Section 155(18) suggests a potential for relief. However, the Tribunal's ultimate decision on the disallowance is not fully elaborated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), holding that the reasons provided were bonafide and that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' should be adopted. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C is applicable when the source of expenditure is unexplained, not when purchases are found to be bogus. Since the AO disallowed the purchases as bogus under Section 37(1) and this was challenged by the assessee, the PCIT's revision under Section 263 was unwarranted.
The tribunal reduced the addition for unexplained cash credits to Rs. 2 lakhs and directed assessment under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE. It restored the issue of interest income on substandard assets to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Section 80G deduction for CSR expenditure was allowed, and the Section 271DA penalty was deleted.
The tribunal reduced the addition for unexplained cash credits to Rs. 2 lakhs and directed assessment under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE. It restored the issue of interest income on substandard assets to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Section 80G deduction for CSR expenditure was allowed, and the Section 271DA penalty was deleted.
The CIT(A) rightly set aside the reassessment order and restored the matter to the AO for a denovo reassessment. This was because the assessee had submitted additional evidence for the first time before the CIT(A), which required examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate. An appeal cannot be filed merely in anticipation of penalty proceedings, and the assessee has a remedy to appeal any penalty order if it is passed.
The Tribunal held that while the sale of firewood was established, the estimated profit margin of 10% was excessive. It reduced the profit estimation to 3.5% of net credits, acknowledging the nature of unorganized sector transactions.
The Tribunal found that the Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. case had already adjudicated this issue in favour of the department. Therefore, the assessee's arguments against the disallowance were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision for an earlier assessment year with identical facts, the Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 44BB.
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. The Revenue did not rebut the NCLT's approval of the sale.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand to explain the deposits. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not reject the assessee's books of accounts and that the nature of the NBFC business involves cash recoveries.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's legal ground regarding the invalid notice was not sustainable in light of a jurisdictional High Court decision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to rent, bogus purchases, unexplained expenses, and sundry creditors, and also rejected the Revenue's ground on salary disallowance.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed, with the assessee free to raise all pleas before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed the GST liability as an expense in its Profit & Loss account, no disallowance under Section 43B was warranted. The disallowance was made without legal basis.
The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions and the submissions, particularly the need for additional evidence regarding Intra Group Services and the improper appreciation of the trading segment, decided to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 and 3 (Intra Group Services) were partly allowed for statistical purposes, indicating a need for re-examination. Similarly, Grounds of Appeal Nos. 2, 6, and 7 (Sensor Assembling Segment) were also partly allowed, as the rejection of RPM and adoption of TNMM by the TPO required fresh scrutiny. Ground of Appeal No. 5 (Business Support Services) was also partly allowed, with the matter restored to the TPO for a fresh decision due to issues with filter modifications, comparable selection, and risk adjustment. Ground of Appeal No. 8, concerning the non-issuance of specific directions by the DRP, was left open. The overarching decision was to remand the entire matter to the AO/TPO for a fresh adjudication after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that where there are issues of additional evidence, improper appreciation of facts, and procedural irregularities in directions, the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration.
The tribunal restored the penalty issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's business and compliance with VAT provisions but noted the failure to reconcile sales turnover with cash deposits. Consequently, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 6 Lakhs was deemed just and proper, providing significant relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that ESOP-related expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on the binding precedents of the jurisdictional High Court in similar cases.
The Tribunal upheld the reopening proceedings under Section 147/148, finding that the Assessing Officer had a prima facie belief based on tangible material. The addition of Rs. 1,31,50,274/- as bogus long-term capital gains was also confirmed, as the assessee failed to provide cogent explanations and supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of income at 5% on the unexplained cash deposits, treating it as turnover, was in order. The invocation of Section 115BBE on the addition made under Section 68 was also found to be a natural corollary.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to submit necessary documents and explain financial propriety. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the addition under section 69A was not sustainable in law because the MoU was executed by the assessee's HUF, not the assessee himself. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that ESOP-related expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on the binding precedents of the jurisdictional High Court in similar cases.
The CIT(A) upheld additions to the extent of 1% of the gross bank transactions, deleting the balance. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, relying on the principle of consistency and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that ESOP-related expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on the binding precedents of the jurisdictional High Court in similar cases.
The Tribunal held that when an assessment order under Section 143(3) is passed, it creates a presumption that earlier non-compliance has been condoned. Therefore, a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) is not justifiable in such circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the matter of transfer pricing adjustments related to intra-group services needed to be remanded back to the TPO for fresh consideration, examining evidence without focusing on irrelevant aspects. Regarding corporate tax additions, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's grounds concerning unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of credits and the justification for cash purchases. However, it also found no reason to accept the Revenue's case in entirety.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee were reimbursements of salary paid to seconded employees and not FTS. The Tribunal found that the seconded employees were under the sole control and supervision of the Indian company, and the payments were made as salaries, not for technical services.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the limb of misreporting in the penalty notice vitiates the impugned penalty. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the matter of transfer pricing adjustments related to intra-group services needed to be remanded back to the TPO for fresh consideration, examining evidence without focusing on irrelevant aspects. Regarding corporate tax additions, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's grounds concerning unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward losses.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by directing a lump-sum addition for demonetization cash deposits and deleting the disallowance of interest expenses. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that comparables used for benchmarking should be in the same field as the assessee's core auto-component manufacturing. Several comparables were excluded due to being engaged in non-core auto components, having related party transactions exceeding the threshold, or being functionally dissimilar.
The Tribunal held that additions in completed assessments can only be made based on incriminating material pertaining to the relevant assessment year. Since no such material was found for the years 2006-07 to 2010-11, the disallowances were rightly deleted.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10-IC was a procedural lapse and not fatal to claiming the benefit of Section 115BAA. Following previous judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the AO to grant the benefit of the concessional tax regime.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The appellant must first establish their status as the legal heir before the merits of the case are considered.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by directing a lump-sum addition for demonetization cash deposits and deleting the disallowance of interest expenses. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot change the presumption raised in the penalty notice while passing the penalty order. In the absence of a specific charge in the penalty notice regarding concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, the penalty order is unsustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IB(10), finding that the assessee met the conditions despite the AO's objections. The Tribunal also deleted the additions for bogus purchases and notional rent, as no incriminating material was found during the search for the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the correct facts when assuming jurisdiction for reassessment, as evidenced by the issuance of a fresh show cause notice with corrected information. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed due to the faulty assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the correct facts when assuming jurisdiction for reassessment, as evidenced by the issuance of a fresh show cause notice with corrected information. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed due to the faulty assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without an effective hearing and in violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were void-ab-initio as the AO should have invoked Section 153C, given that the reopening was based on material seized from a third-party search. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment was upheld.
The ITAT upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision that the assessment was barred by limitation. The Tribunal followed its previous orders on the same issue, thus quashing the impugned assessment.
The Tribunal held that the hospital's activities qualified as 'medical relief' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, and the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable. Additions made by the AO treating surplus as business income and denying exemption were deleted. However, some disallowances related to TDS were remanded for verification.
The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal, allowing the assessee an opportunity to prove they are direct exporters. The Tribunal, in turn, remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine this specific fact.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A was not applicable as no unexplained money or articles were found in the assessee's possession. The addition of gross commission was also deemed incorrect, and expenses should be allowed. Following a precedent, 20% of the gross commission was to be treated as income.
The ITAT upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision that the assessment was barred by limitation. The Tribunal followed its previous orders on the same issue, thus quashing the impugned assessment.