Loading ITAT cases…
146 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal found that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA depended on the nature of the agreement and the direct engagement with a government or statutory body. As the relevant agreements were not produced, the matter required further factual verification.
The Tribunal noted that there was a dispute regarding the property, and a settlement was reached outside of court. The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to furnish necessary details. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid because the prior approval for reopening the assessment was not obtained from the appropriate authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO cannot make additions solely based on a third-party statement without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing supporting documents for the purchases.
The Tribunal held that payments made for property acquisition and improvements, even if not explicitly mentioned in the sale deed, should be allowed as cost of acquisition and improvement if supported by evidence like confirmations and bank statements. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order was time-barred and the AO failed to follow DRP directions, but chose not to adjudicate these on merit as relief was granted on the primary issue.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's residential status was not properly verified by the authorities below. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's residential status.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO cannot make additions solely based on a third-party statement without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing supporting documents for the purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. Regarding the issue of purchases from M/s Jagannath Agro Ltd., the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by filing various documents, including purchase bills, lorry receipts, bank statements, and stock register entries. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO had not brought on record any material evidence or conducted further inquiries to conclusively prove that the purchases were bogus. The reliance on the statement of Shri Shailabh Khandelwal was deemed insufficient by the CIT(A) without affording the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, a view with which the Tribunal concurred. The Tribunal noted that the AO's order suffered from legal infirmities and deficiencies against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of performance bonus paid to directors, agreeing with the CIT(A) that such payments were part of remuneration based on contractual obligations and services rendered, and that since the directors paid taxes at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) on this income, there was no loss of revenue to the government. Therefore, the AO could not invoke Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The addition made by the AO on this count was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the High Court had directed a fresh assessment based on revised financial statements, excluding fictitious income. The High Court's order was based on the assessee's waiver of any refund claims arising from the reassessment.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not properly verify the transactions, including internal bank transfers and cash deposits, and failed to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal followed a High Court judgment which quashed the earlier assessment orders as illegal and violative of the Constitution. The High Court directed a fresh assessment based on revised financial statements, excluding fictitious income.
The Tribunal noted that the High Court had already declared the assessments illegal and void, directing a re-computation based on revised financials. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in light of the High Court's judgment.
The Tribunal noted that the High Court had already declared the assessments illegal and void, directing a re-computation based on revised financials. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in light of the High Court's judgment.
The Tribunal noted that the High Court had already declared the assessments illegal and void, directing a re-computation based on revised financials. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in light of the High Court's judgment.
The Tribunal noted that the High Court had already declared the assessments illegal and void, directing a re-computation based on revised financials. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in light of the High Court's judgment.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal did not constitute a 'reasonable cause' or 'sufficient cause' as required under the Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had merely shifted the blame to an unnamed third person, which could not be examined, and therefore, the assessee had not demonstrated any genuine reason for the delay. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Kolte Patil Developer Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT and the Bombay High Court decision in Subodh Prakash vs. JCIT, which emphasize the necessity of a valid explanation for condoning delays. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) incorrectly stated that no remand report was received, the report, when examined, contained no adverse findings against the assessee and rather supported their claims. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s non-consideration of the report did not prejudice the revenue's interest and found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal followed a High Court judgment which quashed the earlier assessment orders and directed a fresh assessment based on revised financial statements, excluding fictitious income. The assessee waived any refund claims arising from the reassessment.
The Tribunal followed the High Court's order, which quashed the earlier assessment orders and directed a fresh assessment. The High Court had found the rejection of the assessee's application under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act to be bad in law.
The Learned Department Representative did not object to the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement and not mandatory. Therefore, the FTC cannot be denied solely on the ground of delay in filing Form 67, especially when Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) provisions override the Act and Rules.
The Tribunal held that the amount received was a refund of an advance and did not constitute a 'loan,' 'deposit,' or 'specified sum' as defined under Section 269SS. Therefore, Section 269SS was not applicable to this transaction, rendering the penalty levied under Section 271D unsustainable. The order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal directed the inclusion of Maveric Systems Limited and Harbinger Systems Pvt. Limited as comparables, stating that functional similarity overrides filter-based rejections. However, it rejected the assessee's argument for the exclusion of Tata Elxsi Limited.
The Tribunal held that for international transactions involving receivables from AEs, LIBOR or a similar international rate should be used for benchmarking, not domestic rates. It directed the AO to adopt LIBOR + 200 basis points, allowing a 60-day credit period.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 28 days in filing the Revenue's appeal, finding sufficient cause due to administrative exigencies. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found that the assessee acted as a facilitator for liquor dealers, assisting with online applications for licenses and procurement of liquor. The cash deposits were used for Demand Drafts issued to the State Prohibition & Excise Department and Telangana State Breweries Corporation Limited. Statements from parties who provided cash supported the assessee's role. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee was in the business of providing services to liquor merchants and earned commission. The CIT(A) rightly treated the total cash credits as business receipts and estimated profit at 10%. The Tribunal found that the evidence considered by the CIT(A) was already on record before the AO, thus not violating Rule 46A. The Revenue's grounds were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that filing Form No. 67 on or before the assessment order is passed is a sufficient compliance, and the credit for taxes paid outside India cannot be denied. The Tribunal distinguished the case law relied upon by the Revenue.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn, dismissing it as withdrawn. It clarified that if the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme is not accepted by the Revenue, the assessee can file a Miscellaneous Petition to reinstate the appeal.
The Tribunal noted discrepancies between the deposits alleged by the AO and the actual bank statements, and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application solely on the ground of incorrect form, without providing adequate opportunity to rectify, violates the principle of natural justice. The show-cause notice was also issued with insufficient time for compliance.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be withdrawn, as conceded by the Revenue's DR. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee's case is not accepted under the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme, they can file a Miscellaneous Petition to reinstate the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed a memo for withdrawal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as 'withdrawn'.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals to be withdrawn, as conceded by the Revenue's DR. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee's case is not accepted under the 'Vivad Se Viswas' scheme, they can file a Miscellaneous Petition to reinstate the appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not properly considered the share of the assessee in the sale of an immovable property and had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not properly considered the share of the assessee in the sale of an immovable property and had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of cash deposits to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. The issue of interest from a nationalized bank was also remanded to the AO for verification of the source of funds. The addition on account of house property income was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without referring to the facts or merits of the case, which violates the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the impugned order did not comply with legal requirements.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 209 days in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) issued a notice on 22.02.2021 and passed the order on 03.05.2024 without providing any further opportunity to the assessee. This long gap without adequate opportunity to be heard violates the principle of natural justice. It is a settled legal position that an assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case before an adverse order is passed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case and furnish necessary documentary evidence. The assessee was also directed to ensure compliance by filing documents on the date fixed by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking adjournments. The issue regarding Section 13(1)(c) and Section 11 exemption was not decided on merits as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed a memo to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, both the assessee's appeal against penalty and the Revenue's appeal against quantum addition were dismissed as withdrawn, as the Revenue's appeal no longer survived.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to specify the distinct instance of under-reporting or misreporting as enumerated under section 270A(9). Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the notices were served at the assessee's old address, and the assessee was unfamiliar with online proceedings. It was held that there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance, and the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had filed a memo to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, both the assessee's appeal against penalty and the Revenue's appeal against quantum addition were dismissed as withdrawn, as the Revenue's appeal no longer survived.
The Tribunal found that while GST turnover was supported by returns, VAT turnover lacked supporting evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for further verification of VAT turnover and other related claims by the assessee, allowing the grounds for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had filed some reply, proper evidence was not submitted. Considering the interest of justice, the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction u/s 80JJAA by the CPC u/s 154 of the Act was invalid as it was beyond the scope of Section 154. A controversial issue cannot be treated as a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct, including a significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the late filing of a rectification petition, did not demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding merit in the assessee's explanation for non-compliance, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue for reconsideration.