Loading ITAT cases…
146 orders · Page 1 of 3
The tribunal directed the AO to re-verify issues related to HUDCO loan differences and unrecorded rent, allowing additions only to the extent of unrecorded amounts. It also directed the AO to verify and allow set-off of brought forward business losses and re-compute interest under sections 234A and 234B.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's claim under Section 158A(1) as the identical question of law was pending before the High Court. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer to apply the High Court's decision once it becomes final.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's claim under Section 158A(3) as both parties acknowledged the identical question of law pending before the High Court for earlier assessment years. The appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 was restored to the Assessing Officer with directions to apply the final decision of the High Court once it is pronounced. The appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 was disposed of mutatis mutandis, applying the same directions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the differential amount as sales turnover for the year and restrict the addition to a profit element. However, it modified the CIT(A)'s order by directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income on this differential amount using the assessee's declared Gross Profit (GP) rate of 16.22% for the relevant year, instead of the 15% adopted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 should not lead to the denial of FTC, following various High Court and Tribunal decisions. The provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override the Act and Rules, and Rule 128(9) is directory, not mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in excluding the 8 companies from the list of comparables. The Tribunal found that the TPO's reasons for exclusion were stereotyped and not in accordance with Section 92CA(3). The assessee had provided evidence that these companies were engaged in software development services, which is similar to the assessee's functional profile, and that they met the filters applied by the TPO. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to include these 8 companies in the list of comparables. Regarding the exclusion of Kals Information Systems Private Limited and Cigniti Technologies Limited, the Tribunal noted that while the DRP had directed their exclusion, the assessee claimed that the TPO/AO had not given full effect to this direction. The Tribunal held that once the DRP gives a direction, the AO/TPO is bound to give full effect to it without modifications. Thus, the AO/TPO was directed to verify and give effect to the DRP's order in toto, excluding these two companies. The assessee did not press grounds relating to ESI contribution disallowance and interest on TDS default, so these grounds were dismissed as not pressed. For the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claim in light of the total income computed and levy interest in accordance with law. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanations regarding the source of bank credits, including realization of credit sales from previous years, repayment from debtors, loans/advances, and other business receipts, were summarily rejected by the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that such plausible explanations could not be brushed aside without proper consideration. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish fresh documentary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the notices were not properly served as they were sent to an email address not provided by the assessee. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that foreign exchange gains, if excluded from export turnover, must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deduction, following Supreme Court precedent. However, hedging gains were remanded for verification to determine if they were solely for hedging export proceeds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the notices were not properly served as they were sent to an email address not provided by the assessee. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection. The Tribunal also granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the settlement under DTVSV, 2024, is not finalized for any reason.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause because the assessment notices and order were sent to an incorrect email ID, which the Revenue could not disprove. Consequently, both the quantum appeal (against the addition) and the penalty appeal were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause because the assessment notices and order were sent to an incorrect email ID, which the Revenue could not disprove. Consequently, both the quantum appeal (against the addition) and the penalty appeal were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal in view of the settlement achieved under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the present appeal was not maintainable because it was a duplicate appeal against an order already disposed of by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as being non-est.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by a previous ITAT decision in a similar case. Both parties agreed that the matter should be set aside to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain their case and consider the relevant case law.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination or corroborative evidence are unsustainable. Similarly, disallowances based on enquiries without providing the report to the assessee for rebuttal are also not valid.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination or corroborative evidence are unsustainable. Similarly, disallowances based on enquiries without providing the report to the assessee for rebuttal are also not valid.
The Tribunal decided on the issue of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account (Rs. 11.33 lacs). The assessee claimed the deposits were from petty creditors, including agricultural laborers, and cited a decision from the preceding year. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided confirmation letters for these creditors in the current year, unlike in the preceding year. The Tribunal agreed with the AO that the creditworthiness of the parties was not substantiated and that it was far-fetched for agricultural laborers to lend money to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities and dismissed the ground of appeal related to this issue. The Tribunal also noted that grounds of appeal 1, 9, and 10 were general and dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal admitted additional grounds of appeal concerning the validity of the AO's jurisdiction and the non-consideration of the revised return, as these legal issues could be decided based on available facts, following the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal's specific findings on other grounds of appeal are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal deleted certain additions related to property investments, finding insufficient evidence to sustain them. It also upheld the deletion of protective additions made in the wife's case, as the same issues were substantively dealt with in the husband's case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence of sufficient cash withdrawals from the same bank account prior to the deposits, which could explain the source of the deposited funds. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal deleted certain additions related to property investments, finding insufficient evidence to sustain them. It also upheld the deletion of protective additions made in the wife's case, as the same issues were substantively dealt with in the husband's case.
The Tribunal deleted certain additions related to property investments, finding insufficient evidence to sustain them. It also upheld the deletion of protective additions made in the wife's case, as the same issues were substantively dealt with in the husband's case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not validly put to notice for the hearings before the CIT(A) despite opting out of email communication. The CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the 143(1) intimation merges with the subsequent scrutiny assessment order. It further ruled that if the audit report is filed before the assessment is completed, the deduction under Section 80IAB cannot be denied, even if filed after the due date for filing the return.
The Tribunal considered the facts and permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, while principally agreeing with the CIT(A)'s view that the assessee could claim 100% deduction under Section 80IC upon undertaking 'substantial expansion' as per Section 80IC(8)(ix), found fault with the manner in which the CIT(A) summarily allowed the claim. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order lacked verification regarding whether the assessee had satisfied the pre-conditions for claiming the modified/enhanced deduction under Section 80IC(2)(a)(ii). Specifically, there was no mention of whether the assessee had indeed carried out 'substantial expansion' as defined, nor had the CIT(A) verified other pre-conditions. While the assessee's claim for the preceding year being allowed by the AO supported the current claim, it did not justify dispensing with the verification of cumulative satisfaction of pre-conditions for the year under consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after verifying the cumulative satisfaction of the pre-conditions by the assessee for claiming the modified deduction.
The Tribunal held that the 143(1) intimation merges with the subsequent scrutiny assessment order. It further ruled that if the audit report is filed before the assessment is completed, the deduction under Section 80IAB cannot be denied, even if filed after the due date for filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee, including gift deeds, loan documents, and bank statements, needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer. The matter was set aside for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the sub-contractor payments as actual expenditure rather than advances. However, regarding the IOC liability, the Tribunal noted a new confirmation received from IOC after the CIT(A)'s order, requiring further verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were barred by limitation and quashed them. For AY 2017-18, the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained investment was confirmed as the assessee failed to establish the source of payment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO was invalid because a mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued. This procedural defect vitiated the entire assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee failed to comply with notices before the CIT(A) but, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's willingness to produce evidence, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh order on merits after providing the assessee due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the 65-day delay, considering it in the interest of justice. It remanded both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication: to verify the source of the cash deposit from sales proceeds despite being SBNs, and to estimate income using the Net Profit ratio based on the assessee's past history rather than the Gross Profit ratio.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were barred by limitation and quashed them. For AY 2017-18, the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained investment was confirmed as the assessee failed to establish the source of payment.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is directory and not mandatory. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, it was determined that a delay in filing Form 67 cannot be a sole ground for denying the Foreign Tax Credit.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were barred by limitation and quashed them. For AY 2017-18, the addition of Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained investment was confirmed as the assessee failed to establish the source of payment.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition without proper verification and consideration of the assessee's and group concerns' replies. Crucial facts regarding the nature and origin of the transactions were not ascertained.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemptions) summarily rejected the application without considering the assessee's request for adjournment or the submissions/documents uploaded before the order was passed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be afforded to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal found the AO's methodology for disallowing expenses to be arbitrary and lacking a cogent basis, especially when the assessee was in a pre-revenue stage. The Tribunal set aside the matter back to the AO for re-adjudication, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity and consider all documentary evidence as per the mandate of law.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.