Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 12 of 17
The Tribunal held that as per the first proviso to Section 153C, the block period for assessment is to be reckoned from the date of receipt of seized materials by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. Therefore, the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 fell outside the permissible ten-year period.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to respond to the notices issued by the AO, with liberty to the AO to take an adverse view if the assessee fails to comply.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the application for condonation of delay on merits, considering relevant Supreme Court judgments. If the delay is condoned, the CIT(A) should decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the credit rating services provided by the assessee did not involve the imparting of any technical skill, process, or know-how to the clients. Therefore, the receipts could not be taxed as FTS. The AO was not justified in taxing these receipts as FTS.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the non-searched person (assessee) did not explicitly state that the seized material had any bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the non-searched person (assessee) did not explicitly state that the seized material had any bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the issue of software license and maintenance income being royalty, following its own previous decisions. However, the issue of PE was restored to the AO for fresh examination, and penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal held that for losses to be carried forward and set off, the return determining such losses must be filed in accordance with Section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act. Since the return for AY 2020-21 was filed belatedly without seeking condonation, the benefit of set off in AY 2024-25 was denied.
The Tribunal held that the broken period interest received from the buyer of the debentures, even if not directly from the issuer, is chargeable as interest income. The nature of the receipt does not change based on who paid it.
The Tribunal held that as per the first proviso to Section 153C, the block period for assessment is to be reckoned from the date of receipt of seized materials by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. Therefore, the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 fell outside the permissible ten-year period.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a portion of the interest expenditure claim and also affirmed the allowance of deduction under section 54F. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the assessee's claim for set-off of loss from F&O trading.
The tribunal dismissed the jurisdictional grounds, stating that the assessee participated in proceedings without objection and that the transfer of jurisdiction was valid. However, it allowed the appeal regarding the levy of tax under section 115BBE at 60%, directing the AO to tax the income under normal provisions as the transactions predated the amendment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause, citing the death of the assessee's accountant and the consequent non-receipt of the reassessment order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a portion of the interest expenditure claim and also affirmed the allowance of deduction under section 54F. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the assessee's claim for set-off of loss from F&O trading.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Sales Tax/VAT was not justified as it was a statutory levy paid for business purposes. However, the disallowance of employee's contribution to EPF due to late payment was upheld as it was not deposited within the prescribed due dates.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some details for commission payments, there were deficiencies such as lack of written agreements and mismatch in ledger accounts. Therefore, a lump-sum disallowance of Rs 5 lakh was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court had condoned the delay in filing Form 10. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's claim for accumulation under Section 11(2) as per law.
The Tribunal held that the rental income should be taxed under the head 'Income from House Property' as the assessee's activities indicated letting out of premises rather than a systematic business operation. However, the allowability of interest expenses required further inquiry by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to the non-supply of the approval obtained under Section 151 of the Act, despite specific requests. The assessment order was quashed on this legal ground.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be bonafide and applied a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that if the payees have offered the income for taxation and paid the due taxes, and provided a certificate to that effect, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not sustainable.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to consider three previously rejected comparable companies as valid, as they were accepted in the subsequent assessment year. The issue of one comparable was remitted back for fresh examination, and the comparability of five newly introduced comparables was also set aside to the TPO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was barred by limitation and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was invalid and beyond the period of limitation. The reasoning was based on the fact that the profit embedded in the transactions was ₹4,27,778/-, which is substantially below the ₹50 lakhs threshold prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act for issuing a notice beyond three years, where income is represented in the form of an 'asset'. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ram Nebhnani HUF, which held that only the net income from buy and sell transactions can be brought to tax, not the entire sum, and that the department has the onus to justify reopening. Since the notice under Section 148 was quashed as invalid, the Tribunal did not proceed to decide the merits of the case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the assessee's appeal on this issue.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction. It noted that investigations revealed the political party was involved in providing accommodation entries, returning donations in cash after deducting commission.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid. Reassessment proceedings initiated based on a defective notice are vitiated and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and quashed them. The Tribunal noted that the case was reopened on the premise that the assessee was identified as an 'exit provider' and not a beneficiary of loss or profit, and therefore, commission income should have been added. However, the addition was made under Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal found that the facts of the case were squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra) and other High Courts cited by the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that if the foundational reason for reopening the assessment fails, the reassessment proceedings do not survive, and the Assessing Officer cannot make additions on other issues. Consequently, grounds 1 and 2 of the assessee's appeal were allowed, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed. Other grounds became academic.
The Tribunal held that passing an assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity due to merger is a jurisdictional defect and not a curable procedural irregularity under Section 292B of the Income-tax Act. The assessment order was deemed invalid and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the aggregation approach for benchmarking international transactions, as approved in previous years and by the Delhi High Court, should be followed. Since the facts for the current assessment year are identical to previous years where the aggregation approach was accepted and services were proved, the adjustment made by the TPO is deleted.
The Tribunal found that the TPO's selection of comparables was inappropriate due to functional dissimilarity and rejected certain comparables used by the TPO. The matter was set aside to the TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the TPO's selection of comparables was inappropriate due to functional dissimilarity and rejected certain comparables used by the TPO. The matter was set aside to the TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issue of comparable companies in transfer pricing needed fresh adjudication by the TPO. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside for fresh decision by the AO.
The Tribunal found that the issue of comparable companies in transfer pricing needed fresh adjudication by the TPO. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside for fresh decision by the AO.
The Tribunal found that the issue of comparable companies in transfer pricing needed fresh adjudication by the TPO. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside for fresh decision by the AO.
The Tribunal found that the AO failed to follow the DRP's directions and made a substantive addition instead of a protective one. The matter was restored to the AO to verify if the assessee had offered the intra-group service charges to tax in AY 2023-24.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was decided ex-parte without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the order of the learned CIT(Exemptions) was to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal observed that it was not clear from the CIT(Exemptions)'s order what activities were carried on during assessment years 2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25. The CIT(Exemptions) herself admitted that the assessee had not filed documentary evidence of engagement in educational activities during subsequent years. Therefore, to allow the assessee one more opportunity to file details for examination by the CIT(Exemptions) to reach a conclusion on whether the assessee is engaged in activities as per its memorandum of association, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions)'s file. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to examine the details and record a finding on this fact. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic and non-speaking order without independent enquiry or application of mind, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying inappropriate filters for comparable companies and in not following the rule of consistency. It also found that the AO erred in treating computer software as intangible assets eligible for depreciation at 25% instead of 60% as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to decide the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) afresh.
The Tribunal held that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal also noted that the order of the Assessing Officer was ex-parte and therefore, it was also set aside. The matter was remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, including jurisdictional issues. Regarding the appeal filed under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal observed that since the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, the Assessing Officer could reinitiate penalty proceedings if concealment of income was found during the set-aside proceedings. Accordingly, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted. The appeal in ITA No.1150/Del/2026 was allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal in ITA No.1151/Del/2026 was allowed.
The Tribunal held that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal also noted that the order of the Assessing Officer was ex-parte and therefore, it was also set aside. The matter was remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, including jurisdictional issues. Regarding the appeal filed under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal observed that since the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, the Assessing Officer could reinitiate penalty proceedings if concealment of income was found during the set-aside proceedings. Accordingly, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted. The appeal in ITA No.1150/Del/2026 was allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal in ITA No.1151/Del/2026 was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was procedural and that its availability before the processing of the return constituted sufficient compliance for claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12. The assessee's substantive right to claim exemption was not defeated by the procedural delay.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly made additions for the house property used by the assessee's family for residential purposes. Such properties should be considered self-occupied, and additions for notional rent as vacant property were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of explaining the source of cash in hand, despite multiple opportunities. Mere bank statements showing withdrawals were not considered a satisfactory explanation for the ultimate origin of the funds.
The Tribunal found that one of the comparable companies, ANZ, had related party transactions exceeding the TPO's adopted threshold of 25% of sales. Consequently, ANZ should be excluded as a comparable. The Tribunal directed the TPO to verify this fact and exclude ANZ if the contention is correct. The remaining grounds concerning TP adjustments were kept open.
The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the learned CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(Exemption) with a direction to decide the matter afresh. This decision was based on the observation that the CIT(Exemption) had passed an ex-parte, non-speaking order. The CIT(Exemption) is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal admitted the additional documentary evidence filed by the assessee vide letter dated 2nd June 2026. It was noted that this evidence could not be produced before the lower authorities due to unavoidable circumstances and is considered crucial to the issue. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh, considering the additional evidence, after affording the assessee sufficient opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient opportunity and evidence to the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the contentions and evidence of the assessee were not properly scrutinized by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present evidence and claim presumptive taxation under Section 44AD if eligible.
The Tribunal found the CIT's order to be ex-parte and non-speaking, thus not in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal as infructuous because the assessment order under section 143(3) did not result in any new additions or disallowances, and therefore, the assessee had no grievance to be redressed.