Loading ITAT cases…
976 orders · Page 3 of 20
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10B beyond the due date is directory, not mandatory. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to Section 11 exemption.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to present all facts and documents to the AO.
The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s estimation of GP at 14% based on market comparables. It also held that the disallowance of bogus purchases cannot be sustained once the GP is estimated and books of account are rejected.
The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s estimation of GP at 14% based on market comparables. It also held that the disallowance of bogus purchases cannot be sustained once the GP is estimated and books of account are rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was done in the larger interest of justice, acknowledging potential communication gaps.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to fully prove her claim, the possibility of accumulated past savings could not be ruled out. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs was deemed just and proper, providing relief of Rs. 12.53 lakhs.
The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s estimation of GP at 14% based on market comparables. It also held that the disallowance of bogus purchases cannot be sustained once the GP is estimated and books of account are rejected.
The Assessing Officer confirmed the addition of Rs. 30,01,000 under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. The Tribunal, considering the facts, held that the explanation of cash sales was not fully acceptable, but also that the entire amount could not be added. The Tribunal estimated cash deposits from cash sales at 20% of the total cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the full leave encashment exemption as the amount claimed is below the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000 notified by the CBDT. The AO is directed to allow the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed its return declaring NIL taxable income after setting off brought forward losses. The case was selected for scrutiny under TP risk parameters due to large international transactions with very low profit before interest and taxes, high liabilities compared to low income/receipts, and a large asset base. The assessee's primary contention was that the Ld. AO/DRP/TPO erred in disregarding the segmental analysis and instead considering an entity-wide approach. The assessee also argued that the Hon'ble DRP failed to consider the segmental break-up of income and expenses. In light of these contentions and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 of the Ld. AO. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. TPO for re-doing the segmental analysis separately in accordance with law, after affording a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly mentioned that the DRP failed to consider the segmental break-up of income and expenses while deciding objections. The principle derived is that segmental analysis is crucial in transfer pricing, and an entity-wide approach may be inappropriate if segments have distinct profitabilities. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the TP adjustment itself but remanded the matter for proper segmental analysis.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the AEs were in the nature of intra-group services, not stewardship activities, citing the decision in Morgan Stanley & Co. and the USA Treasury Regulations. The Tribunal noted that the DRP overturned the TPO's view on stewardship activities but then held the transacted value of intra-group services to be at ALP without carrying out any analysis. Crucially, the Revenue's appeal was confined only to challenging the decision on characterization of services and did not challenge the DRP's decision on ALP. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from going into the aspect of ALP determination as no ground was raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal further relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT (International Taxation) vs AT Kearney Ltd (India Branch Office), which held that where the rendering of services was not questioned and detailed cost break-ups were submitted, the Tribunal was right in deleting the adjustment on account of intra-group services. Consequently, the entire Transfer Pricing adjustment made by the revenue on account of administrative support services segment was directed to be deleted. Grounds 2.1 to 2.5 of the assessee's appeal were allowed, and Ground 1 of the revenue's appeal was dismissed. Grounds 9-12 of the assessee's appeal were left open.
The ITAT found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the facts and evidence. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, deeming it crucial for a fair disposal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal is consequential to the pending quantum appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the penalty appeal should also be kept pending.
The tribunal found that the NFAC passed an ex-parte order without independent findings. Therefore, to ensure justice, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had not fully discharged its onus, the Revenue's estimation of gross profit was also not fully justified. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of 2.5% of the turnover was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. The reopening of assessment was also found to be valid as no return was filed and the assessee did not comply with notices.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee's justification for its low profit margins nor the Revenue's estimation of a 3% gross profit was fully justifiable. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of 2.5% of the turnover was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid. This was because the AO failed to properly record that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income, as mandated by law.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on stale information already available during the original assessment and revision proceedings, constituting a 'change of opinion'. The additions were deleted as the proceedings were beyond jurisdiction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment year was outside the purview of section 153C, following the Delhi High Court's rulings. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the loan was taken in AY 2018-19 and repaid in the current AY through banking channels, with interest paid. The AO's conclusion that the loan was fictitious was not supported by material evidence, and the reopening of the assessment was therefore without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on stale information already available during the original assessment and revision proceedings, constituting a 'change of opinion'. The additions were deleted as the proceedings were beyond jurisdiction.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO's file, granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate its claims. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the evidence and the assessee's cooperation.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid. This was because the AO failed to properly record that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income, as mandated by law.
The Tribunal found that a show cause notice was indeed issued and the CIT(A)'s finding to the contrary was factually incorrect. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not conduct proper inquiries regarding the active GST registrations.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment year was outside the purview of section 153C, following the Delhi High Court's rulings. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., found that there were mistakes apparent from the record. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to recall the earlier order to address the specific issues raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment year was outside the purview of section 153C, following the Delhi High Court's rulings. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that ESOP expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) based on High Court precedents. It also held that expenses incurred for earning interest income are deductible under Section 57.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act beyond 31.03.2022 were barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent demands were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- as unexplained investment was unsustainable. It was based on an excel sheet entry without cogent evidence, and the Omaxe Group confirmed receiving only Rs. 1 crore through RTGS, denying any cash payment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment year was outside the purview of section 153C, following the Delhi High Court's rulings. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid. This was because the AO failed to properly record that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income, as mandated by law.
The Tribunal held that the sanction order under Section 151 was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and being mechanically granted. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment under Section 147 was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal decided that the outcome of the quantum matters would impact the penalties. Therefore, the impugned penalty orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid. This was because the AO failed to properly record that the seized material pertained to the assessee and had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income.
The Tribunal decided that the outcome of the quantum matters would impact the penalties. Therefore, the impugned penalty orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on stale information already available during the original assessment and revision proceedings, constituting a 'change of opinion'. The additions were deleted as the proceedings were beyond jurisdiction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment for AY 2013-14 was beyond the 10-year block period prescribed under Section 153C, as the relevant period for calculation commenced from the date of handing over of seized documents to the AO.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act applies to unexplained cash credits, not to sales receipts recorded in the trading account. Since the cash sales were declared in the assessee's audited books, supported by stock movement and VAT returns, and the books were not rejected, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return of income should be condoned, following coordinate bench decisions. The assessee's claim for taxation under Section 115BAC was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 fall outside the scope of Section 153C as the block period calculation was incorrect. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions regarding the commencement point for the block period.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and cooperate in the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 fall outside the scope of Section 153C as the block period calculation was incorrect. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions regarding the commencement point for the block period.
The Tribunal held that the loose sheets did not clearly identify the assessee, the property, or the transaction details, and lacked independent corroboration. The statement of the searched person under Section 132(4) was not sufficiently confronted to the assessee, and the factual discrepancies raised by the assessee were not disproved.
The Tribunal held that for shares issued in a previous year and merely converted in the current year, Section 68 is not applicable. It further held that investments from Venture Capital Funds are exempt under the second proviso to Section 68, and investments from non-resident investors, with proper documentation like FIRC and KYC, are also to be treated as genuine.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on stale information already available during the original assessment and revision proceedings, constituting a 'change of opinion'. The additions were deleted as the proceedings were considered beyond jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the primary requirement of uploading Form 10B was complied with in time. The delay in e-verification due to a technical glitch was considered plausible. The Tribunal further noted that the filing of Form 10B within the stipulated time is a directory provision, not mandatory.
The Tribunal held that if CSR expenditure is on charities eligible for deduction under Section 80G, it should be allowed. Following coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal directed that the benefit of Section 80G be allowed as claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided complete documentary evidence for the purchases, which were made through banking channels. The revenue failed to bring any evidence to prove the purchases were bogus, and the AO did not conduct independent inquiries. The Tribunal also noted that Section 69C was not applicable to accounted transactions.