Loading ITAT cases…
296 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded an effective opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon for the addition. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal directed the deletion of Rs. 15,54,500/- of the addition, finding the assessee's explanation for cash accumulation for his son's marriage satisfactory. The issue of the remaining Rs. 4,00,000/- was remanded for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also held that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of advancing the borrowed funds to M/s Saket Engineering Pvt. Ltd. on interest requires detailed verification. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of the fund flow, utilization, and nexus with interest income earned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's serious medical condition. It also granted a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their agricultural income claim before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee failed to appear or provide any evidence before the lower authorities or the Tribunal to rebut the findings regarding bogus purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and a liberal approach. It further held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued beyond three years and lacked the required approval from the specified authority under Section 151.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 8,24,83,899/- on account of interest on Masala Bonds is not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA), entered into on 16.02.2024, covers the assessment year 2021-22 and stipulates an arm's length interest rate of not more than 8.70% per annum for this transaction. Since the assessee paid interest at exactly 8.70% per annum, which is within the agreed arm's length rate, the adjustment made by the TPO and AO cannot be sustained. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete this adjustment. Grounds nos. 5 to 7 were allowed. Regarding the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 4,16,720/- for IT support services, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Xilinx India Technology Services Private Limited vs. DCIT. It held that companies with disproportionately high turnover should be excluded and that a turnover range of ten times on both sides of the assessee's turnover should be applied for benchmarking. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to apply the turnover filter uniformly to all comparables using this range and then determine the arm's length price. Grounds nos. 8 and 9 were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot take two different stands on the same issue. Since the penalty proceedings were dropped for a co-owner in identical circumstances after considering the Form-68 application, the penalty on the assessee was also deleted.
The Tribunal found that the total credits in the bank account were Rs. 43,15,647/-, not Rs. 70,13,357/-. Since the assessee provided explanations for various credits, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after verification of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the mandatory prior approval from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act. The department could not produce any record to prove such approval was obtained.
The Tribunal held that the initial rejection of the 80G application was vitiated by a violation of natural justice due to non-service of notice. Consequently, subsequent orders based on this flawed rejection were also unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to a cost. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that estimating income at 8% was arbitrary given the low profit margins in milk distribution and directed the Assessing Officer to estimate income at 3% of gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 234E fee depends on whether TDS statements were processed before or after June 1, 2015, as per a Karnataka High Court ruling. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of processing dates and unadjusted challans affecting interest calculations.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inference linking the ledger entry to the assessee was based on hypothesis without corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the amount in question was a receipt, not an expenditure, making the addition under Section 69C inappropriate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence due to the seizure of records. Therefore, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was covered by the COVID-19 pandemic period and the Supreme Court's orders. The assessee had a bona fide belief that a separate condonation petition was not required. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case with all necessary details and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the initial rejection of the 80G application was vitiated by a violation of natural justice due to non-service of notice. Consequently, subsequent orders based on this flawed rejection were also unsustainable.
The tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure as the AO questioned the genuineness of the claim, not its source. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) for rent paid in cash was upheld as the monthly rent exceeded the threshold. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on salary was deleted, following CBDT circulars, as the employees' income was not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 234E fee depends on whether TDS statements were processed before or after June 1, 2015, as per a Karnataka High Court ruling. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of processing dates and unadjusted challans affecting interest calculations.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E is prospective from June 1, 2015, and requires verification of processing dates. It also directed verification of unadjusted challans for interest under Section 201(1A) and recomputation of consequential interest under Section 220(2).
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the JV is entitled to the TDS credit as the contracts were awarded to it and TDS was deducted from payments made to it. The sub-contracting of work does not alter the fact that TDS was deducted from the JV's receipts.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was a 'cut and paste' error and did not address the issues raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the initial rejection of the 80G application was vitiated by a violation of natural justice due to non-service of notice. Consequently, subsequent orders based on this flawed rejection were also unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the initial rejection of the 80G application was vitiated by a violation of natural justice due to non-service of notice. Consequently, subsequent orders based on this flawed rejection were also unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 234E fee depends on whether TDS statements were processed before or after June 1, 2015, as per a Karnataka High Court ruling. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification of processing dates and unadjusted challans affecting interest calculations.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for non-appearance to be plausible and granted one more opportunity for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that estimating income at 8% was arbitrary given the low profit margins in milk distribution and directed the Assessing Officer to estimate income at 3% of gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the loan was received and repaid through banking channels, and only a small balance was outstanding. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to allow credit for TDS and TCS amounts reflected in Form 26AS.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, allowing a reasonable expenditure of Rs. 25,000/- against the speculative income. For the unexplained investment, the Tribunal deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 9,85,364/- which was explained through banking channels and confirmed by creditors.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to the absence of satisfaction recorded by the AO during assessment proceedings. Furthermore, the alleged contravention of Section 269SS occurred in AY 2018-19, not AY 2017-18, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider the application in the proper perspective of law and rejected it without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(E) should have waited for the expiry of the granted time before making a decision.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not dispatched within the due date as per postal records, making it barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment order based on this notice was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing sufficient cause and a lenient approach. Both appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the Section 148 notice was obtained from an authority not vested with jurisdiction as per Section 151 of the Act, as more than three years had lapsed from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. Consequently, the additions made by taxing the compensation were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid due to lack of proper approval from the specified authority under Section 151, as it was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for issuing the notice beyond three years from the end of the assessment year was obtained from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) instead of the Chief Commissioner/Director General (CCIT/DGIT), as required by Section 151.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 164(1) of the Income Tax Act allows for taxation at individual slab rates if none of the beneficiaries have taxable income exceeding the basic exemption limit. Therefore, applying MMR was incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. Consequently, the additions made by taxing the compensation were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing sufficient cause and a lenient approach. Both appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.