Loading ITAT cases…
189 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A by Finance Act, 2022, which broadened the scope of disallowance, is prospective and not applicable for AY 2017-18. It was decided that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for the relevant assessment year must be restricted only to investments that yielded exempt dividend income. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additional disallowance made on non-dividend yielding investments.
The Tribunal held that signing of an assessment order is a mandatory requirement as per Section 282A(1) of the Income Tax Act. Since the assessment order was not signed in any form, it was considered null and void.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding additional depreciation, stating that the issue is settled law allowing the claim in the subsequent year. For the transfer pricing adjustment, the Tribunal found the revenue's grounds to be academic and infructuous, as the assessee had no taxable income and claimed no deduction under Section 80-IA, making the adjustment have no tax consequence.
The Tribunal condoned the 251-day delay in filing the appeal, recognizing that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without addressing its merits. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding it non-maintainable as the tax effect (Rs. 52,91,625/-) was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The assessee's Cross Objections were also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment under Section 147 on the same issue that was previously examined and dropped under Section 263 proceedings is bad in law. The Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to circumvent a final order passed by the Commissioner.
The Tribunal observed that the impugned order was passed ex-parte. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)' order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh examination of documents after providing another opportunity to the assessee, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not record the assessee's submissions and relied on an inadequate remand report. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to produce evidence and witnesses to substantiate the share application money, clarifying the AO's role in examining such witnesses.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the assessee's written submissions and evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after considering all submissions and evidence.
During the Tribunal proceedings, the CPC rectified its intimation u/s 154, applying the tax rates specified in Section 115BAA, thereby resolving the primary dispute. Consequently, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Tribunal dismissed it as withdrawn, noting that other grounds were also not pressed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, confirming that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions were established, as evidenced by banking channel transfers and the completion of the lenders' assessments under Section 143(3) without adverse findings. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed, having been withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the source of funds for the property purchase and registration charges from her salary account, supported by bank statements and details of payments through banking channels. Concluding that the source of investment was established, the Tribunal directed the deletion of both additions made by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee, while failing to provide all confirmations to lower authorities, had now filed them. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the fresh documents and provide another opportunity to the assessee for hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had already adjusted the ₹3,80,401/- paid towards prior years' leave encashment in its computation of income. It held that the AO (CPC) had no jurisdiction to disallow an actual payment made against leave encashment for prior years. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the sale of investments amounting to ₹11,56,20,000/- was not an unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal after considering a remand report from the AO, which accepted that the sum was on account of the sale of investment, not an unsecured loan. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law arising and upheld the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition. Regarding the Cross Objection, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s direction to add 5% of the sale consideration as net profit was without any basis or presumption, and therefore set aside this direction, allowing the assessee's Cross Objection. For the assessment years where assessments were unabated, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A without any incriminating material seized during the search, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Revenue's appeals in these cases were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid as it was invoked solely on the AO's proposal without the PCIT recording independent satisfaction regarding the erroneous and prejudicial nature of the assessment. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT must provide objective findings to justify invoking Section 263, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the PCIT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. AO, directing a fresh examination of the share application money addition, specifically concerning the correct assessment year of receipt, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal's decision effectively allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the assessee's appeal. It ruled that the market value for captive power should be based on the State Electricity Board tariff for consumers, not the rate charged by generating companies to distribution companies. The Tribunal also allowed CSR donations to 80G registered institutions as a deduction.
The Tribunal ruled that the one-time settlement received by the assessee for loss of source of income was a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt, citing Supreme Court decisions. It further held that since the assessee had fully disclosed the particulars of the settlement in the return of income, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was imposable, even if the revenue disagreed with the tax treatment.
The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10CCB before the order under Section 143(1) is a curable procedural defect and constitutes sufficient compliance, thus entitling the assessee to the deduction. It relied on Supreme Court and Kolkata High Court precedents, directing the AO to allow the claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation to be reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to interest on unpaid interest, following previous decisions of coordinate benches and Supreme Court judgments. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest by first adjusting the refund against the interest component.
The Tribunal held that the sale of investments amounting to ₹11,56,20,000/- was not an unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal after considering a remand report from the AO, which accepted that the sum was on account of the sale of investment, not an unsecured loan. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law arising and upheld the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition. Regarding the Cross Objection, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s direction to add 5% of the sale consideration as net profit was without any basis or presumption, and therefore set aside this direction, allowing the assessee's Cross Objection. For the assessment years where assessments were unabated, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A without any incriminating material seized during the search, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Revenue's appeals in these cases were dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the required approval under Section 151 for reopening after three years was obtained from the Pr.CIT instead of the Pr.CCIT, as mandated by law and Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceeding was quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest expenditure is allowable only if wholly and exclusively for earning income. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance, considering only interest-bearing funds advanced as interest-free loans, and also to re-examine the charging of interest under Section 234A based on the extended due date.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee's cash deposits represented accounted professional fees, with the cash receipts and bank deposits properly explained. Therefore, the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act were not applicable, and the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) were set aside. A duplicate appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the sale of investments amounting to ₹11,56,20,000/- was not an unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal after considering a remand report from the AO, which accepted that the sum was on account of the sale of investment, not an unsecured loan. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law arising and upheld the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition. Regarding the Cross Objection, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s direction to add 5% of the sale consideration as net profit was without any basis or presumption, and therefore set aside this direction, allowing the assessee's Cross Objection. For the assessment years where assessments were unabated, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A without any incriminating material seized during the search, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Revenue's appeals in these cases were dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, which sets a monetary threshold of Rs. 60,00,000/- for challenging CIT(A) orders before the Tribunal. Since the appeal did not fall under any specified exceptions, it was dismissed for low tax effect, with liberty for the revenue to file a Miscellaneous Application for revival if facts change.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions in similar cases for other assessment years. It found that the interest income had already been assessed in the hands of the Netherlands entity and taxing it again in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the sale of investments amounting to ₹11,56,20,000/- was not an unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal after considering a remand report from the AO, which accepted that the sum was on account of the sale of investment, not an unsecured loan. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law arising and upheld the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition. Regarding the Cross Objection, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s direction to add 5% of the sale consideration as net profit was without any basis or presumption, and therefore set aside this direction, allowing the assessee's Cross Objection. For the assessment years where assessments were unabated, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A without any incriminating material seized during the search, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Revenue's appeals in these cases were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned, considering the director's retracted statement indicating commission earned was in the range of 0.05% to 0.15%. Relying on a previous similar case, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 0.10% of the total turnover.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action was not sustainable as he neither doubted the book results (sales and purchases) nor relied on comparable cases for the GP rate enhancement. It was emphasized that an addition based on GP enhancement without rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145 lacked legal validity.
The Tribunal held that the AO made substantial efforts to serve notices on the assessee, and despite the assessee's frequent change of address, there was substantial compliance with Section 282. The CIT(A)'s order remanding the case for fresh assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the sale of investments amounting to ₹11,56,20,000/- was not an unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal after considering a remand report from the AO, which accepted that the sum was on account of the sale of investment, not an unsecured loan. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law arising and upheld the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition. Regarding the Cross Objection, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s direction to add 5% of the sale consideration as net profit was without any basis or presumption, and therefore set aside this direction, allowing the assessee's Cross Objection. For the assessment years where assessments were unabated, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A without any incriminating material seized during the search, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Revenue's appeals in these cases were dismissed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the justification of cash deposits is a factual issue that was not properly investigated by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, instructing the AO to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to present evidence and then pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing all the required documentary evidence to the AO, which was acknowledged in the assessment order. The AO's sole basis for the addition was the non-compliance with summons under Section 131 by the investors, which prevented the recording of their depositions and thus, the verification of their genuineness and creditworthiness. However, the AO did not point out any defect or deficiency in the documents submitted by the assessee. The CIT(A) provided conflicting findings regarding the evidence. The Tribunal found that the addition made merely on the ground of non-compliance with summons, without any adverse comment on the documents filed, was not sustainable. Relying on the precedents cited by the assessee, 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 ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee's cash deposits represented accounted professional fees, with the cash receipts and bank deposits properly explained. Therefore, the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act were not applicable, and the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) were set aside. A duplicate appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidences, acknowledging their importance for proper adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, deeming it reasoned and speaking, and affirmed that a Gross Profit rate, not a net profit rate, should be applied to undisclosed transactions. Consequently, both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that both the AO/CPC and CIT(A) erred by overlooking the assessee's provisional registration under Section 12A of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO/CPC to re-examine the issue afresh, duly considering the assessee's registration under Section 12AA of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. AO's rejection of the books of account under Section 145(3) was invalid as no specific defects were recorded and findings were contradictory. It further ruled that the addition of ₹1,42,72,500/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was improper, following judicial precedents that discourage additions based on conjecture when sales are duly recorded in books. Grounds 2 and 3 of the assessee's appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all necessary documentary evidence, including ledger extracts, sales register, sales invoices, bank statement, e-way bills issued by the VAT department, transport vehicle details, and VAT returns, to substantiate the sales transactions. These evidences were duly recorded in the assessee's books of account. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made the addition solely based on the statement of Shri Rohit Sharma without any corroborative or substantive material on record. The AO had not disputed the genuineness of the evidences filed by the assessee, such as e-way bills, transport details, VAT returns, sales invoices, and bank statements. The AO's action was based only on the investigation wing's finding that Shri Rohit Sharma was a bogus purchaser. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions and consequently dismissed the Revenue's appeals for both AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the assessee's appeal. It ruled that the market value for captive power should be based on the State Electricity Board tariff for consumers, not the rate charged by generating companies to distribution companies. The Tribunal also allowed CSR donations to 80G registered institutions as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2020-21, where Tata Elxsi and Sasken Technologies were excluded. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the sale of investments amounting to ₹11,56,20,000/- was not an unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal after considering a remand report from the AO, which accepted that the sum was on account of the sale of investment, not an unsecured loan. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law arising and upheld the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition. Regarding the Cross Objection, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s direction to add 5% of the sale consideration as net profit was without any basis or presumption, and therefore set aside this direction, allowing the assessee's Cross Objection. For the assessment years where assessments were unabated, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A without any incriminating material seized during the search, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Revenue's appeals in these cases were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the assessee's appeal. It ruled that the market value for captive power should be based on the State Electricity Board tariff for consumers, not the rate charged by generating companies to distribution companies. The Tribunal also allowed CSR donations to 80G registered institutions as a deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the assessee's appeal. It ruled that the market value for captive power should be based on the State Electricity Board tariff for consumers, not the rate charged by generating companies to distribution companies. The Tribunal also allowed CSR donations to 80G registered institutions as a deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons for the delay as bonafide due to company merger and employee changes. It then quashed the reopening of assessment, holding that the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) were vague, scanty, and ambiguous, and the approval granted by the PCIT under Section 151 was mechanical, without proper application of mind.