Loading ITAT cases…
247 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal found that the issue of LTCG derived from share transfers being treated as bogus cash credits had been adjudicated in favor of the assessee in identical cases by a co-ordinate bench. The reasoning of the lower authorities was found to be identical across all these appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merit after condoning the delay. Consequently, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AAB cannot be levied solely on the basis of a voluntary offer made to buy peace of mind, especially when no corroborating incriminating evidence was found during the search. The penalty was restricted to the amount of cash found.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of gratuity provision, obsolete stock, and warranty provision write-backs for AY 2007-08. For AY 2014-15, the ALP adjustment and working capital issue were restored to the TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not doubt the identity and genuineness of the share subscribers solely because inspectors could not trace them. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to prove the identity and genuineness of the subscribers and their sources of funds.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part, specifically on the issue of disallowance of interest on interest-free loans to subsidiaries, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals on grounds related to Section 14A disallowance and addition of NPA provisions in book profits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the AO. Citing Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed without sufficient inquiry and opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper service of notices. Furthermore, the AO had not complied with the specific directions issued by the CIT under Section 263 for conducting a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that in similar cases, matters were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication due to inadequate inquiry by the authorities below. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which is binding on revenue authorities. The circular's revised monetary limits apply retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity of being heard to the assessee when the withdrawal request was not accepted. The CIT(A) also failed to pass a speaking order as required by law.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee and that the CIT(A) had not properly applied the law in cases of substantial share premium. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal in part, specifically on the issue of disallowance of interest on interest-free loans to subsidiaries, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals on grounds related to Section 14A disallowance and addition of NPA provisions in book profits.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by providing evidence of the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. This included PAN details, bank statements, audited financial statements, and income tax acknowledgments, which were placed on record. The Tribunal noted that the AO had failed to conduct any meaningful inquiry or investigation to disprove the documents furnished by the assessee. The AO's addition was based on inferences drawn from circumstances and a lack of inquiry, which is not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down in cases like Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. and Ganjeshwari Metals, where a lack of inquiry by the AO leads to the deletion of additions made under Section 68. Therefore, no addition was warranted under Section 68, and the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order could not be sustained as the Assessing Officer had not granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention of non-receipt of notices and the AO's alleged refusal to record attendance. Both parties agreed to remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that notices from the CIT(A) were not received. It also noted that the AO did not follow the specific directions of the CIT for fresh inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not clearly specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalties in two cases and sustained a partial penalty in one case. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of gratuity provision, obsolete stock, and warranty provision write-backs for AY 2007-08. For AY 2014-15, the ALP adjustment and working capital issue were restored to the TPO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing and that the ex-parte order did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not clearly specify whether the charge was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's contentions regarding procedural irregularities and the lack of proper representation before lower authorities. Considering the circumstances, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case during the reassessment proceedings. The AO passed a 'best judgment assessment' without effectively verifying the documents submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the expenses were reimbursement of amounts paid on behalf of clients and did not represent income of the assessee. Therefore, no TDS was required on these reimbursement bills.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that notices were not received due to an incorrect address. Consequently, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment as per the CIT's prior directions.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not produced any material to prove the transactions were false or fictitious. The assessee had provided all documentary evidence to support the purchase and sale of shares, which were not found to be fabricated by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalties in two cases and sustained a partial penalty in one case. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the payment to the sub-contractor was made directly by the principal employer, M/s. Tirupati Jute Industries Ltd., by cheque, and the total income received by the assessee had already suffered TDS. The assessee, being an individual not falling under the specified categories for TDS deduction under Section 194C, was not liable for disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal, following the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The circular mandates withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalties in two cases and sustained a partial penalty in one case. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned. The addition on account of delayed PF payment was not accepted due to lack of cogent evidence and ad-hoc nature. The salary disallowance was also deemed to be based on guesswork without rejecting the books of account.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of gratuity provision, obsolete stock, and warranty provision write-backs for AY 2007-08. For AY 2014-15, the ALP adjustment and working capital issue were restored to the TPO for fresh adjudication.
A co-ordinate bench had already reversed the CIT's revision order, which was the basis for the current proceedings. The Revenue did not dispute these developments.
Following the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified limit should be dismissed. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the cess collected under the West Bengal Motor Transport Workers Welfare Cess Act, 2010, and deposited in the "West Bengal Transport Workers Social Security Scheme" account, administered by a Board on behalf of the State Government, is not income liable to tax. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot re-open an assessment completed under section 143(1) without any new tangible material. The AO's belief that income had escaped assessment was based on a change of opinion, not new evidence, rendering the re-opening invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the transactions were carried out on a recognized stock exchange through a registered broker and were supported by contract notes, demat account evidence, and payment by account payee cheques. It also considered that the assessee had provided documentation to prove the purchase and sale of shares, and that similar claims regarding the same scrip had been upheld in previous Tribunal decisions.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) on a specified date.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) on a specific date.
The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice because the Assessing Officer issued notice at the old address, which was not served, despite having the new address on record. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had treated the ground as 'not allowed' while directing adjustments for taxes paid. Since the Revenue could not point out any specific grievance arising from this, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged its onus of substantiating the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and the genuineness of the share transaction. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to specify the "discreet enquiries" made and did not confront the assessee with the information gathered. The Tribunal found that no enquiries were conducted by the AO under Section 133(6) or 131 from the share subscribers. The AO's adverse inference was based on surmise and conjecture, lacking relation to the facts. The assessee provided documentary evidence, including IT records, audited balance sheets, and bank statements of itself and all involved parties, which proved the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found that the assessee's audited accounts showed engagement in the business of a solar power plant, and the funds were not routed back to SGJHL and its associates as alleged by the AO. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO was based on a wrong appreciation of facts and that the CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the assessee's contentions. Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided various details regarding the share capital. Considering the lack of proper opportunity before the AO and the violation of natural justice, the matter was set aside for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not apply the correct legal propositions and the AO failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's share transactions should be treated as capital gains, not business income, based on the consistency of its accounting practices and the nature of the transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that isolated instances do not make an assessee a trader.
The Tribunal held that receipts under the RDCA were in the nature of reimbursement and not royalty, as per the India-Netherlands DTAA. It also held that services under the MSSA did not 'make available' technical knowledge, skill, or expertise, thus not falling under the definition of fees for technical services.
The Tribunal held that receipts under the RDCA were in the nature of reimbursement and not royalty, as per the India-Netherlands DTAA. It also held that services under the MSSA did not 'make available' technical knowledge, skill, or expertise, thus not falling under the definition of fees for technical services.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged its onus of substantiating the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and the genuineness of the share transaction. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to specify the "discreet enquiries" made and did not confront the assessee with the information gathered. The Tribunal found that no enquiries were conducted by the AO under Section 133(6) or 131 from the share subscribers. The AO's adverse inference was based on surmise and conjecture, lacking relation to the facts. The assessee provided documentary evidence, including IT records, audited balance sheets, and bank statements of itself and all involved parties, which proved the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found that the assessee's audited accounts showed engagement in the business of a solar power plant, and the funds were not routed back to SGJHL and its associates as alleged by the AO. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO was based on a wrong appreciation of facts and that the CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the assessee's contentions. Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in confirming only the profit element (4%) on the undisclosed turnover, as turnover includes cost of material and gross profit. The entire turnover cannot be treated as income.