Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal upheld the principle that TDS was not deducted. However, it held that the first proviso to Section 201(1) introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, has retrospective effect. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification regarding whether the receipts were assessed in the hands of the recipients.
The Tribunal held that interest on loans given to foreign AEs should be determined based on the rate prevailing in the country where the loan is consumed, not in India. The CIT(A)'s decision to use LIBOR+ basis points was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the subsequent relief obtained by the assessee before the CIT(A), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and lacked merit-based discussion. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration after providing the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not initiated validly. It was undisputed that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by ITO Ward 5(3), while the assessment was completed by ITO Ward 11(4). The Tribunal noted that ITO Ward 11(4) was the officer having jurisdiction over the assessee, and the assessee had filed her return with her correct address. Therefore, ITO Ward 5(3), who issued the notice under Section 148, lacked jurisdiction over the assessee. When this fact was brought to the notice of ITO Ward 5(3), the assessment record was transferred to ITO Ward 11(4). However, even at that stage, ITO Ward 11(4) did not record reasons for reopening or issue a notice under Section 148 to the assessee at her correct address. Instead, the AO proceeded from the stage at which the files were transferred. The Tribunal emphasized that an AO gets jurisdiction to reopen an assessment only after recording reasons for reopening and issuing a notice under Section 148 within the prescribed time, conditions which were not fulfilled. Consequently, the reassessment order dated December 30, 2016, was set aside. Since the assessment order was set aside on the ground of invalidity, other grounds of appeal became academic and were not adjudicated. The ratio decidendi is that reassessment proceedings initiated by a non-jurisdictional officer, without proper recording of reasons and valid service of notice by the jurisdictional officer, are invalid.
The Tribunal held that for a valid revision under Section 263, the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Since the Assessing Officer had adopted a possible view by treating deposits as business receipts and estimating profit, the order was not considered erroneous, thus setting aside the Section 263 order.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. It also clarified that the assessee could seek revival of the appeal if the settlement benefit was denied.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for increasing authorized share capital are not deductible as revenue expenditure. It also noted that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration. The assessee will be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were invalid because they did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being proposed. This failure was not condonable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were invalid because they did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being proposed. This failure was not condonable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that if sale consideration was not received, the sale might not have concluded. Consequently, invoking Sections 45 and 50C might not be necessary. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The ITAT, in the interest of justice, decided to remit all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessees to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in determining the ALP of management services as nil and in imputing interest on receivables without following the prescribed methods. The Tribunal directed the deletion of these adjustments.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remit all issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that sale consideration was not received, indicating the sale might not have concluded. Consequently, the invocation of sections 45 and 50C might be inappropriate.
The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of Section 80P(2) deduction back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, particularly in light of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue of Section 36(1)(viii) deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following various judicial pronouncements that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The Revenue failed to provide any contrary precedent.
The Tribunal held that the issue of unexplained cash credits required fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer, considering a subsequent criminal court judgment acquitting the assessee.
The Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude M/s Hartron Communications Ltd. from the comparables for BPO services, following a previous ITAT decision. For the corporate guarantee, the Tribunal adopted a rate of 0.92% as per prior ITAT rulings.
The ITAT, in the interest of justice, decided to remit all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessees to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were invalid because they did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being proposed. This failure was not condonable, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to remit all issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration on merits. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that sufficient opportunities were given, but in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is the owner of the property and has received rental income from it. Therefore, it should be treated as 'income from house property' and all eligible deductions, including interest on borrowed capital, are allowable.
The Tribunal held that the deduction for employee's contribution to PF and ESI should be allowed if paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income, following the Supreme Court's decision in Alom Extrusions.
The Tribunal restored the issue of Section 54 deduction back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) with all evidence regarding the non-completion of the residential house.
The Tribunal found no evidence of the assessee conceding to the disallowance. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue afresh after providing the assessee with opportunities to present relevant details.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the 8% estimation on civil construction contracts but remitting sub-contract receipts for a 5% estimation after factual verification. The issue of depreciation disallowance was also remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if their scheme applications were rejected.
The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear with all relevant evidence within three opportunities of hearing.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal before the Tribunal due to availing the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The Revenue conceded to this request.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek reinstatement of the appeal if the assessee's application under the scheme was not accepted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the sundry creditors were farmers involved in job work for seed processing, not mere cash credits. The assessee had subsequently repaid the creditors and produced some of them with their bank accounts for verification, establishing the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals as they had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. The assessees were granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement if their scheme applications were rejected.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on an estimated addition. The Tribunal also noted that the notice for penalty proceedings was not on record and followed various case laws where penalty was cancelled on estimated additions.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals to be withdrawn by the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.