Loading ITAT cases…
1,031 orders · Page 21 of 21
The Tribunal found no record of any oral or written request by the assessee to raise additional legal grounds under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. Therefore, there was no mistake apparent from the record to rectify.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's claim as he failed to prove that the payments were made by someone else. The assessee is liable for credit card payments and must provide cogent explanations.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to non-prosecution. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Ojjus Medicare, held that the ten-year block period for assessment under Section 153C should be calculated from the date of handing over of documents by the AO of the searched person to the AO of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment years in question fell outside this period.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Ojjus Medicare, held that the ten-year block period for assessment under Section 153C should be calculated from the date of handing over of documents by the AO of the searched person to the AO of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment years in question fell outside this period.
The Tribunal held that since both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte, the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to consider the legal heir of the deceased assessee and provide an opportunity for submissions.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer, the impugned penalty orders had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals against the penalty orders were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued in violation of Section 151 of the Act as the approval was obtained from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT or CCIT. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, following the principle of Vegetable Products Limited, due to the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling on the taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting High Court decisions.
The tribunal decided to give the assessee a further opportunity to represent their case. The CIT(A) is directed to reconsider the issue afresh after hearing the assessee and examining any evidence provided.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently substantiated the source of the cash deposits with bank statements, ledger accounts, and confirmations from clients. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 18.07.2022 was issued in violation of Section 151 of the Act, as it was issued after more than three years from the relevant assessment year without the required prior approval from the Competent Authority. This rendered the notice defective and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer, the impugned penalty orders had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals against the penalty orders were dismissed.
The Tribunal found the addition of business income at 10% of alleged bogus purchases to be on the higher side. To meet the ends of justice, the business income was estimated at 4% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of ignorance of tax provisions and acceptance of cash payment. However, the explanation that part of the payment was received through cheque could not be substantiated.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) were invalid and rightly quashed by the Ld. CIT(A). The primary reason for this decision was the AO's 'reason to believe' being based on a demonstrably incorrect factual premise. The AO had stated that no assessment under Section 143(3) was made for AY 2012-13, which was contrary to the record showing a scrutiny assessment was completed on 22.12.2014. This fundamental error in the AO's recorded reasons, particularly when reopening beyond four years, signifies a non-application of mind and a jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal noted that once a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) is completed, it cannot be reopened after four years without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts, which was not alleged. The AO's action appeared to be a change of opinion rather than a genuine belief of escaped income based on proper grounds. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under VRS was in the nature of retrenchment compensation and fully exempt under Section 10(10B). It also ruled that appellate authorities can admit legally sustainable fresh claims made during appeal proceedings.
The Tribunal held that ground no. 1, challenging the validity of the assessment order on limitation, was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. Regarding the existence of a DAPE, the Tribunal found that it could not be conclusively established that RELX India was a DAPE of the assessee. However, even if it were accepted that RELX India is a DAPE, the Tribunal held, in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in DIT vs. Morgan Stanley & Co., that no further attribution of profits was warranted. This was because the transactions between RELX India and the assessee were at arm's length as per the APA. The Tribunal examined the APA and found that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was applied to benchmark marketing support services, with RELX India as the tested party. The APA indicated that RELX India did not have the power to fix prices or offer discounts, with the primary responsibility lying with the associated enterprises (AEs) of RELX India, including the assessee. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's objection to the ALP determined under the APA, stating that while a unilateral APA might not bind foreign AEs, it has legal sanctity under Indian tax laws and is a complete process for determining ALP. Consequently, the assessee succeeded on ground no. 5. Grounds no. 4 and 6 became academic and were left undecided. The Tribunal dismissed ground no. 7 regarding levy of interest u/s 234B as mandatory and consequential, and ground no. 8 regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A as premature.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was invalid as it did not state that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity due to amalgamation are void ab initio and cannot be cured by Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the cross-objection was condoned.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee provided some documents, critical evidence regarding the existence of the vendor and physical proof of transactions was missing. However, the assessee's books were not rejected. The Tribunal directed the AO to confirm an addition of 3% of the alleged bogus purchases and delete the addition on account of estimated commission.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in a mechanical manner without considering the assessee's submissions and documents. Therefore, the assessment order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the definition of 'interest' under Section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act is broad and includes service fees and other charges related to borrowed money or credit facilities. Therefore, processing fees, insurance, and maintenance charges paid on the loan are allowable deductions under Section 24(b).
The Tribunal held that the matter needed to be restored to the file of the AO for de novo determination. Regarding the legality of the notice and approval (Issues 1 & 2), while the grounds were raised, the Tribunal did not explicitly decide on their legality but proceeded to address the substantive issues. On the classification of agricultural land as a capital asset (Issue 3), the Tribunal noted that the assessee's distance certificates were based on outdated municipal limits. It directed the AO to determine the correct distance from the expanded municipal limits of the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon, as they existed on the date of transfer, considering the notifications and the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sheel Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana. The matter was restored to the AO for this determination, with directions to provide an opportunity to the assessee and consider the evidence. Regarding the sale consideration and bounced cheque (Issue 4), the Tribunal observed that the assessee's counsel stated a compromise was reached, and the sale deed was executed and never cancelled, rendering the pleadings about the bounced cheque infructuous. However, the Tribunal agreed in principle with the assessee's contention for indexed cost of acquisition for ancestral land and directed the AO to examine and allow the claim on merits. For exemption under Section 54F (Issue 5), the Tribunal directed the assessee to provide all necessary material to the AO, who was instructed to verify and examine the claim on merits, noting the onus is on the assessee to meet the conditions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to do so renders the notice invalid and the entire penalty proceeding void ab initio.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to respond to notices and the large value of transactions. Considering the assessee's potential incarceration, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition in the quantum matter was deleted, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be levied. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act, similar to a previous year's decision. However, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of the total amount received and the extent received in the current assessment year.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished documents, but they were not properly considered by the CIT(E). Therefore, the appeal was allowed to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the issue back for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to re-examine the application and consider any evidence filed by the assessee.