Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 4 of 17
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without applying its mind and without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s 8% profit estimation was high. Considering the assessee's average GP of preceding and succeeding years, the Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to 2% of total purchases.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gains should be treated as operating income and that common expenses should be allocated based on profit. It also ruled that four out of five comparable companies rejected by the TPO were valid comparables, directing a re-computation of the transfer pricing adjustment. The disallowance of interest expenditure was also reversed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration of facts and without applying its mind. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash turnover in the assessee's business but found that the assessee had not fully discharged its onus of proof. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the subsequent provisional registration granted to the assessee. The issue was restored to the AO for verification of this registration.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to the overseas agent were commission for procuring orders and follow-up, not FTS, as services were rendered outside India. Therefore, the assessee had no obligation to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases. This disallowance is not to be treated as a precedent, and the assessee's book entries are rejected to that extent.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind. It was held that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a taxpayer's right.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind. It was held that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a taxpayer's right.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind, violating the assessee's right to natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to obtain necessary approval from the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act for reopening the assessment, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant previous year. This failure vitiates the reopening proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind, violating the assessee's right to natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the assessee's applications without proper consideration of facts and non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the assessee's applications without proper consideration of facts and non-application of mind. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that a lump sum addition of Rs. 1.90 lakhs would meet the ends of justice, providing relief of Rs. 13 lakhs to the assessee. Regarding Section 115BBE, it was held that the provision applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017, and the assessee should be assessed under normal provisions.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not fully discharged its onus, the possibility of cash turnover in the business could not be ruled out. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 4 lakhs was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding unsecured loans by providing repayment evidence through banking channels, relying on judicial precedents. However, the issue of share application money additions was not fully resolved in the provided text, but the assessee's appeal was allowed, implying a favorable outcome for them on that point as well.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash turnover in the assessee's business but found that the assessee had not fully discharged its onus of proof. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was deemed just and proper, with the remaining amount being allowed.
The Tribunal held that receipts from professional services, which were substantial and customer-specific, were taxable as FTS. However, receipts from software subscriptions were not considered FTS or royalty. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal found that communication gaps could not be ruled out and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the matter afresh within three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to establish his status as a legal representative as defined by law. Therefore, the appeal was rejected at this stage.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without applying its mind and without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the sale consideration was within the 10% tolerance limit. It directed verification of the Noida Authority's proposals regarding base valuation and rate lists to determine if the addition should be deleted.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee could prove its claim of net profit nor could the Revenue establish a comparable for estimating at 5%. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a lump sum estimated net margin of 3% was applied to the turnover.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to pass orders on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a mere routine distributor and had not added any value to the imported goods. Therefore, the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction, as confirmed by various High Court decisions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration of facts and proper application of mind. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that receipts from professional services, which were substantial and customer-specific, were taxable as FTS. However, receipts from software subscriptions were not considered FTS or royalty. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was without jurisdiction as it was issued by an ITO when the declared income warranted jurisdiction by an AC/DC. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it did not explicitly state that the seized material pertained to the assessee and had a bearing on the determination of their total income, as required by law. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the COVID-19 period and the pending rectification application as sufficient cause. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of 1% of the net profit on unverifiable purchases, considering them as accommodation entries. The remaining addition was deleted, acknowledging that the assessee had discharged some burden of proof.
The Tribunal acknowledged divergent judicial opinions on bogus purchases. It decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases, stating it would not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 65,373.65. This disallowance was not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that a substantive right of the assessee cannot be defeated merely for a technical glitch. The rejection of the application by the CIT(Exemptions) was based on a technical defect arising from the inadvertent selection of an incorrect clause while filing Form 10A. The Tribunal found this to be a bona-fide and procedural mistake that ought not to have led to the rejection of a substantive claim for registration, particularly when the assessee was engaged in genuine charitable activities. The Tribunal relied on the principle that technical defects should not impede substantive claims and cited decisions from various ITAT benches, including Indore, Mumbai, and Kolkata, which adopted a pragmatic approach in similar situations. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemptions) and remanded the matter back for de-novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be provided an opportunity of being heard and to file necessary documents. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any issues related to the genuineness of the charitable activities themselves, as the matter was remanded for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to the overseas agent were commission for procuring orders and follow-up, not technical services. Since the services were rendered outside India, the assessee had no obligation to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind, violating the assessee's right to natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the rejection of the 80G approval was consequential to the rejection of the 12AB registration. However, since the fate of the 12AB application in further appellate proceedings was unclear, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and found that the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's applications without due consideration and without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without proper consideration and application of mind, violating the assessee's right to a hearing. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without due consideration and proper application of mind, violating the assessee's right to natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged divergent judicial opinions on bogus purchases and decided that a lumpsum addition of Rs.25 lakhs out of the total bogus purchases would be just and proper, without setting a precedent.
The Tribunal allowed the exemption under Section 54 for the residential flat sale, finding sufficient evidence of CGAS deposit. For the agricultural land, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh verification regarding its location relative to municipal limits. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow indexation benefit for calculating capital gains on the residential property sale.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and found that the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's applications without due consideration and without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.