Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 11 of 17
The tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without granting a hearing. It directed the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity to the assessee and decide the matter on merit.
The Tribunal held that legal services provided by the firm do not constitute 'Fees for Technical Services' under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Professional services are distinct from technical services as per the Act's definitions.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the CIT(E) passed an ex parte order. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that legal services provided by the firm do not constitute 'Fees for Technical Services' under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Professional services are distinct from technical services as per the Act's definitions.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the CIT(E) passed an ex parte order. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that legal services provided by the firm do not constitute 'Fees for Technical Services' under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Professional services are distinct from technical services as per the Act's definitions.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the CIT(E). Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the application without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a fair hearing.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The CIT(Exemptions) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the registration without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of natural justice principles. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not followed. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed Ground 6, finding that MKCI cannot be held as a Dependent Agent PE (DAPE) of the assessee under Article 5(7) of the India-Japan DTAA. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide evidence that MKCI habitually exercises authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee, maintains a stock of goods, or habitually secures orders for the assessee. The AO also did not rebut the assessee's assertion that MKCI is a separate independent entity assuming its own risks and transacting on a principal-to-principal basis. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the ratio in DIT v. E-Funds IT Solution, holding that a subsidiary does not become a DAPE merely due to interaction or cross-transactions with the foreign parent, squarely applies. Therefore, MKCI cannot be held as a DAPE for the assessment year under consideration. Grounds 8, 9, and 10 were held to be consequential. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the cash receipt violated Section 269ST, which requires cash of Rs. 2 lakhs or more to be received in a day, in a single transaction, or relating to one event. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that irrevocability and dissolution clauses are necessary for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration after the assessee incorporates these clauses.
The Tribunal held that reimbursements made to group affiliates for IT costs, software facilities, salary, and travel expenses were cost-to-cost and did not constitute fees for technical services. The transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on receivables was also set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in a summary manner, violating principles of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not in accordance with Section 151 of the Act, as the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) for reopening beyond three years, which requires sanction from a higher authority. Consequently, the notice and subsequent assessment were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the five comparable companies identified by the TPO/DRP – Gateway Distriparks Limited, Navkar Corporation Ltd., Sequel Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Unique Expeditors Private Limited, and Shree Vasu Logistics Ltd. – are not valid comparables for the assessee. The reasoning was that these companies own significant transportation fleets, making them functionally dissimilar to the assessee, which is an intermediary that does not own any transportation assets. Consequently, the action of the TPO/DRP and AO in including these comparables and making the related adjustment of Rs. 4,26,00,557/- (part of the total Rs. 4,62,86,002/-) was set aside. Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 4 were accepted. Regarding the addition of Rs. 36,85,445/- on account of interest on outstanding receivables, the Tribunal, by respectfully following the jurisdictional precedent in the assessee's own case for AY 2015-16 and the decision in AVL India (P.) Ltd. (supra), held that payables and receivables should be netted off. If payables exceed receivables, no addition is warranted against trade receivables. Therefore, the addition was deemed illegal and set aside. The AO/TPO was directed to re-compute the interest chargeable on outstanding net receivables as per law. Ground of appeal No. 5 was allowed. Grounds of appeal Nos. 6 and 7, being consequential, were left open.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act, as it failed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made under Section 69. It found that the issue was covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, where similar inconsistencies in claiming depreciation were not treated as unexplained investment.
The Tribunal, to prevent miscarriage of justice, granted the assessee a further opportunity to present its case. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit materials.
The Tribunal held that the intimation order passed under Section 143(1) was bad in law as the CPC failed to provide the mandatory pre-intimation and opportunity to respond as required by the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a). Therefore, the intimation order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the rental income from the property should be treated as income from house property, not business income, and remanded the matter to the AO for recalculation of applicable deductions. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding profits on the sale of assets.
The Tribunal, to prevent miscarriage of justice, granted the assessee a further opportunity to present its case. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit materials.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The AO's failure to provide a remand report and the assessee's submission of supporting evidence led to the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of IUC is largely settled in favour of the assessee through various judgments, including those by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Vodafone Idea Limited cases. Coordinate benches of the ITAT have consistently held that such services cannot be taxed as Royalty or FTS in India. The Tribunal found merit in the dissenting view of the DRP member and the reasoning in the case of Oman Telecommunications Company SAOG. The Tribunal noted that IUC receipts are business income for the assessee, covered under Article 7 of the India-Oman DTAA. Since the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the business profits should be taxed in the country of residence. The Tribunal concluded that the IUC receipts cannot be taxed in India either as FTS, Royalty, or 'other income'. Therefore, the assessee succeeded on ground no. 4. Grounds 2 and 3 were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 11 for not filing Form 10B, the gross receipts cannot be taxed when expenditure was incurred for the society's objects. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in allowing deduction for expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The AO's failure to provide a remand report and the assessee's submission of supporting evidence led to the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that there must be a difference between turnover as per books of accounts and receipts declared under Service Tax. However, the assessee failed to provide reconciliation statements for the difference.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed by an AO without valid jurisdiction, as the notices under Section 143(2) were issued by different officers and no order under Section 127 was passed to transfer the jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was excessive, considering the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (UAPA) entered into by the assessee with the CBDT. The AO was directed to cap the royalty and technical fees at 1.9% of net sales as per the UAPA.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to the land sale, finding that the land was agricultural and the capital gains were correctly computed. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for the outstanding balance to M/s. Ridhi International, noting that the amount was repaid.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement and brand promotion expenses were incurred for the assessee's own business and were not reimbursed. It also held that the price drop expenses represented a genuine commercial loss not reimbursed by the supplier. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the advertisement and brand promotion expenses were incurred for the assessee's own business and were not reimbursed. It also held that the price drop expenses represented a genuine commercial loss not reimbursed by the supplier. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the introduction of share capital amounting to Rs. 21,37,50,000/- cannot escape the rigors of Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a closely held company, failed to conclusively prove the identity and creditworthiness of most share subscribers. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Lovely Exports (supra) and Nipun Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd (supra), emphasizing the difference between public and closely held companies. The Tribunal upheld the AO's findings regarding share capital and disapproved the CIT(A)'s relief. Regarding commission income, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the AO presumed commission without evidence, and thus deleted the addition of Rs. 74,81,250/-. For sundry creditors, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh inquiry to conclusively settle alleged mismatches and doubts. Concerning the GP estimation, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the GP at 7% for the entire year, considering the AO's deficiencies and the totality of facts, and reduce the addition accordingly.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had raised a valid point regarding the incorrect calculation of GST turnover and the inclusion of rental income. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the learned CIT(Exemptions) was ex-parte and non-speaking. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to decide the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter, pass a speaking order in accordance with the law. The principle established is that orders rejecting registration applications must be speaking orders and passed after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Additionally, the approval for issuing the notice was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that its fresh application for registration under Section 12A had been favorably considered and granted by the Department, rendering the present appeal infructuous. The Senior DR for the Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions made in the 'statement of facts'. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest-free advances to the AO for fresh adjudication, requiring the assessee to provide supporting documents. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal held that denying a refund on technical grounds when the delay in e-verification was condoned by the CPC amounts to unjust enrichment by the Revenue and violates Article 265 of the Constitution. The Revenue is obligated to assist the assessee and collect only legitimate taxes.
The Tribunal held that the due date for depositing employee contributions to PF/ESI should be reckoned from the end of the month in which wages become due, not from the month of actual disbursement. Therefore, the disallowances made under section 143(1)(a) were upheld as the assessee had deposited contributions beyond the prescribed due dates.
The Tribunal held that the due date for depositing employee contributions to PF/ESI should be reckoned from the end of the month in which wages become due, not from the month of actual disbursement. Therefore, the disallowances made under section 143(1)(a) were upheld as the assessee had deposited contributions beyond the prescribed due dates.
The Tribunal noted that a previous order for the same assessment year had already decided that only 5% of the bogus purchases should be added as profit. Therefore, the current appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid because the approval for reopening the assessment was obtained from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT), as required when more than three years have elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the notice and the subsequent assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the due date for depositing employee contributions to PF/ESI should be reckoned from the end of the month in which wages become due, not from the month of actual disbursement. Therefore, the disallowances made under section 143(1)(a) were upheld as the assessee had deposited contributions beyond the prescribed due dates.
The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay was sufficient cause, especially in the absence of contrary material from the Revenue. Technicalities should not defeat substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that disallowances u/s 43B for bonus, GST, and employer's PF were wrongly made as payments were made before the due date of filing the return. It also held that deduction u/s 80G for donations made out of CSR expenses is allowable if other conditions are met, as disallowing it would lead to double disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide concrete proof that the agreement was forged. The right to cross-examination is not absolute in income-tax proceedings, and the assessee did not demonstrate prejudice. The AO's action was based on credible information and material evidence.