Loading ITAT cases…
256 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.
The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.
The Tribunal noted that penalty proceedings are a consequence of assessment proceedings. Since the quantum appeal was pending, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication along with the pending quantum appeal.
The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is allowable to the assessee. The reasoning was based on the fact that Form No. 67 was filed along with the return of income, and the filing of this form is considered directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they are more beneficial to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that Rule 128(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, does not preclude the assessee from claiming FTC in case of delayed filing of Form No. 67, as the credit for FTC is a vested right. Since Form No. 67 was filed along with the return and was available at the time of processing under Section 143(1)(a), there was no justification for not allowing the credit. The Tribunal respectfully followed its own previous decisions and those of coordinate benches, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the FTC in accordance with the DTAA between India and the USA and the law. Grounds 1, 2, and 3 of the appeal were allowed. Grounds 4, 5, and 6 were considered submissions, and Ground 7 was general, requiring no separate adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the 115-day delay in one appeal due to plausible reasons of financial hardship. Emphasizing natural justice, the Tribunal set aside all impugned orders and restored all 18 appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessees a fresh opportunity to present their cases. This remand is conditional upon the assessees paying specified costs to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s orders will be confirmed.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice, remitting the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate in proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the 115-day delay in one appeal due to plausible reasons of financial hardship. Emphasizing natural justice, the Tribunal set aside all impugned orders and restored all 18 appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessees a fresh opportunity to present their cases. This remand is conditional upon the assessees paying specified costs to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s orders will be confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(Appeals) should be set aside to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with future proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the 115-day delay in one appeal due to plausible reasons of financial hardship. Emphasizing natural justice, the Tribunal set aside all impugned orders and restored all 18 appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessees a fresh opportunity to present their cases. This remand is conditional upon the assessees paying specified costs to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s orders will be confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the 115-day delay in one appeal due to plausible reasons of financial hardship. Emphasizing natural justice, the Tribunal set aside all impugned orders and restored all 18 appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting the assessees a fresh opportunity to present their cases. This remand is conditional upon the assessees paying specified costs to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s orders will be confirmed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.
The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of representation and compliance by the assessees before the lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). While agreeing with the Revenue that fresh evidence should not typically be entertained at the Tribunal level, the Bench emphasized the paramount importance of natural justice. Considering that in some cases, there were claims of inadequate opportunities and sketchy presentation of facts, and to ensure a fair adjudication, the Tribunal decided to restore all the issues in these 18 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication. This decision is subject to the assessees paying a consolidated cost, with specific amounts levied for each appeal, to the Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to pay the cost within the stipulated period would result in the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s orders. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, contingent on the payment of costs.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in concluding that the assessee failed to provide details, as evidence of e-filing a reply was presented. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee's cash payments for commission and salary did not violate Section 40A(3) as individual transactions were below the statutory threshold. It was also held that Rule 46A regarding admission of additional evidence was inapplicable since the relevant facts and documents were already before the AO, who had misappreciated them. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for prior years, held that AMP expenses incurred by the assessee were not an international transaction. The assessee had autonomy in incurring these expenses, and they primarily benefited its own business.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that claiming a deduction under a wrong provision should not be a ground for disallowance if the assessee is otherwise eligible. It noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the appeal on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to examine afresh whether the assessee is entitled to the Section 80P deduction on merits, after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 10B one month prior to the due date of filing the return is a procedural requirement and not mandatory. Since the audit report was available to the AO before the completion of assessment and the facts are similar to cited case laws, the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11.
The Tribunal observed that the cash book and bank statement, although offered to tax and submitted to the Tribunal, were not considered by the lower authorities. It remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine all evidences, including the cash book and bank statement, and pass a speaking order after providing the assessee another opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of AMP expenses could not be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB. It also remitted certain issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its submissions.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. -vs.- CIT, held that if employees' contributions to PF/ESI are not paid within the due dates specified by the respective Acts, the assessee is not entitled to claim a deduction, irrespective of whether the payment was made before filing the return of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in The Mavilayi Service Co-op Bank Ltd., which extended the benefit of Section 80P even to credit facilities provided to non-members if such activities are part of the society's memorandum and registered by the competent authority.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not disputed the assessee's status as a cooperative society and had acknowledged the submission of relevant documents like audited accounts and registration. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals)'s decision was considered incorrect.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, adhering to the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of AMP expenses could not be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB. It also remitted certain issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its submissions.
The Tribunal decided to remit certain issues related to AMP expenses back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. For the issue of disallowance of expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D while computing book profits under Section 115JB, the Tribunal held that such disallowance cannot be added back and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in The Mavilayi Service Co-op Bank Ltd., which extended the benefit of Section 80P even to credit facilities provided to non-members if such activities are part of the society's memorandum and registered by the competent authority.
The Tribunal held that AMP expenses incurred by the assessee were not an international transaction. It relied on a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for preceding years, which had also ruled in favor of the assessee on this issue. The Tribunal found that the assessee had autonomy in incurring these expenses and that the benefit to AEs was incidental.
The Tribunal held that since the Revenue did not press its appeal, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. Consequently, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee became infructuous and was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s sustaining of the addition was not justified, especially considering that payments were made via account payee cheques and supported by various documents. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents where similar additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were illegal and void because the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections with a speaking order, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues for earlier assessment years were accepted by the AO.
The Tribunal found that the matter required detailed examination by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the case should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO and CIT(A) orders were set aside to allow verification of the assessee's contentions regarding the conversion of business from proprietorship to partnership and the bank account details.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals. It confirmed that corporate guarantees are international transactions under Section 92B and upheld the 0.5% ALP, aligning with previous decisions. For the Revenue's appeals, the delay in filing was condoned, but the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance was sustained, based on consistent rulings in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals. It confirmed that corporate guarantees are international transactions under Section 92B and upheld the 0.5% ALP, aligning with previous decisions. For the Revenue's appeals, the delay in filing was condoned, but the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance was sustained, based on consistent rulings in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 solely on the ground of a 10-day delay in uploading Form 10B was not justified. The Tribunal referred to several ITAT and High Court judgments, including Kaydee Foundation vs. ITO, Manav Seva Trust vs. CIT(E), Oneness Educational and Charitable Trust vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Global Organization for Development vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), and Al Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions). These precedents established that filing Form 10B is procedural, and defects or delays can be condoned, especially in the absence of mala fide intentions and when the assessee is otherwise eligible for exemption. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B and directed the AO to allow the exemption as per law. The case was restored to the file of the AO for passing an appropriate order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including sale invoices of cars and a wedding invitation, to establish the source of the cash deposit as consideration from selling cars for daughter's marriage expenses. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, with the liberty to revive it if the VSVS-24 resolution was unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹14,06,250/- sustained by the CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee was uncalled for and unwarranted. The Tribunal noted that it was undisputed that the cash deposited in the assessee's bank account belonged to Shri Devesh Upadhyaya, who opened the account using the assessee's PAN and operated it for providing accommodation entries. Shri Devesh Upadhyaya, in his statement recorded under Section 131, admitted that the cash belonged to him and was used for accommodation entries. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that in Shri Devesh Upadhyaya's assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, his income was assessed at 0.10% of the total cash deposits. Therefore, since the income was already assessed in the hands of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya, the addition sustained in the assessee's hands was not justified. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the failure to file Form 10IC was due to an inadvertent procedural error, especially considering the Covid pandemic and difficulties with the IT portal. Relying on the Calcutta High Court's judgment, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT, to ensure natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the assessee's full TDS credit claim, considering all relevant documents, and pass a detailed speaking order after providing a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹2,50,00,000 made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all the necessary documentary evidence concerning the share subscribers, including their names, addresses, PANs, ITRs, audited annual accounts, bank statements, and confirmations. The Tribunal found that the AO had not commented on the merits of the evidence furnished by the assessee and had made the addition solely on the ground of non-compliance with the summons under Section 131. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had also discussed the credentials of the investors and acknowledged that these companies had sufficient funds and had filed proof of identity and creditworthiness. The Tribunal opined that mere non-compliance with a summons under Section 131 cannot be the sole basis for making an addition when substantial evidence has been provided by the assessee. The Tribunal distinguished the decisions relied upon by the revenue and found support in the decisions cited by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly observed the factual mistake and restored the matter to the AO. The appeal filed by the Revenue was considered not maintainable.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals. It confirmed that corporate guarantees are international transactions under Section 92B and upheld the 0.5% ALP, aligning with previous decisions. For the Revenue's appeals, the delay in filing was condoned, but the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance was sustained, based on consistent rulings in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits. Since the dismissal was in limine, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed documents like paper book, bank statement, audited balance sheet, and ledger copy. However, it was concluded that these documents needed detailed examination by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition, finding that the AO failed to establish the date and nature of the transaction between the assessee and M/s. Puspanjali Hirise Pvt. Limited. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, concluding there was no infirmity in the decision to delete the addition.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a Gram Panchayat certificate, valuation report, and an extract from the East Kolkata Wetlands Manual, demonstrating that the land was used for agricultural operations for the required period, with various fruit trees cultivated. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 54B.
The Tribunal held that the case should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO and CIT(A) orders were set aside to allow verification of the assessee's contentions regarding the conversion of business from proprietorship to partnership and the bank account details.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order to uphold the principle of natural justice, remitting the matter back for a fresh hearing. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate, failing which the CIT(Appeals) was free to pass an appropriate order.