Loading ITAT cases…
362 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the conditions laid down in the first proviso to Section 147 were not satisfied. The assessee had fully disclosed material facts during the original assessment, and the reopening was based on information already considered.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was willing to produce documentary evidence for claimed expenses and that an adequate opportunity of being heard was not granted. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 99,00,000/- related to mutual fund units credited to the assessee's Demat account, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s order. The deletion of the remaining addition of Rs. 3,05,36,878/- was also upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions regarding capitalized expenditure on fittings and fixtures in rented premises. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the foreign exchange gain, agreeing that it was notional and unrealized. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the notional interest adjustment, finding the rate reasonable and allowing the interest paid by the assessee as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as it was based solely on uncorroborated scribblings found on documents seized from a third party. The AO failed to summon the Dean for explanation or provide the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not justified as the assessee made a claim for reduction of income through a letter during assessment proceedings (AY 2003-04) or a genuine claim in the return (AY 2004-05) which was not accepted. Furthermore, for AY 2003-04, the penalty notice was vitiated for not specifying the limb under which penalty was levied.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts supported this view.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was framed on incorrect premises, as the shares were acquired by gift in 1995 and not purchased by the assessee in the relevant year. The AO failed to conduct independent inquiry and relied on incorrect facts and a chart pertaining to a different script.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's disclosed commission income and made incorrect assumptions about sales of mobile phones and closing stock valuation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence, including confirmations from investors, bank statements, and ROC filings. The AO failed to provide contrary evidence to discredit the transaction.
The Tribunal held that the forfeited amount received on issuing share capital does not fall under Section 56(2)(ix) as it was not received in the course of negotiations for transfer of a capital asset. Therefore, the amount is a capital receipt and not taxable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of issuing a notice of demand and initiating penalty proceedings at the draft order stage, instead of the final assessment stage, vitiated the assessment order. Consequently, the assessment order was declared null and void.
The Tribunal held that the manual assessment orders were invalid as they did not conform to the CBDT circular, which mandates DIN quoting except in exceptional circumstances with specific procedures. The orders were deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh decision. This was done in light of the Supreme Court's ruling that employee's PF/ESIC contributions must be deposited by the due date prescribed by law to be eligible for deduction.
The tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the manual assessment orders were invalid as they did not conform to the CBDT circular, which mandates DIN quoting except in exceptional circumstances with specific procedures. The orders were deemed to have never been issued.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO under Section 92CA was invalid because clause (i) of Section 92BA, which defined specified domestic transactions, was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from April 1, 2017. Following Supreme Court and High Court decisions, an omission is treated as a repeal, and proceedings based on an omitted provision are invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions made under Section 41(1) for trade creditors and advances from customers, finding no justification for the AO's invocation of the section without proper verification. The Tribunal also upheld the allowance of losses on forward exchange contracts, considering them as ascertained liabilities upon settlement.
The Tribunal held that the appeal could not be proceeded with due to the ongoing insolvency proceedings. As per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, no proceedings can continue during a moratorium period.
The Tribunal held that the interest income is taxable in the hands of the assessee as per the India-Netherlands DTAA. However, it allowed some grounds for statistical purposes while dismissing others, leading to a mixed outcome.
The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. which mandates deposit before the due date prescribed in the specified Act for deduction. However, it restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination of certain claims made by the assessee regarding timely payments and auditor disallowances.
The tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 7,65,000/- due to lack of evidence for the refund claim. However, it deleted the addition of Rs. 7,70,536/-, considering it explained by the confirmed Meenakshi Bhavan receipts and other factors.
The Tribunal held that the AO's inquiry was general and not specific to the CBS fees. The assessee's failure to produce supporting invoices even during revision proceedings further indicated a lack of proper verification. Therefore, the PCIT's action under Section 263 was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the interest income is taxable in the hands of the assessee as per the India-Netherlands DTAA. However, it allowed some grounds for statistical purposes while dismissing others, leading to a mixed outcome.
The Tribunal held that if a transaction is accepted as arm's length in the hands of one party (the AE), it cannot be considered non-arm's length in the hands of the other party (the assessee) for the same transaction, especially when it's a mirror transaction. Therefore, the adjustment made by the TPO was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the majority of the deposits were not Specified Bank Notes, thus invalidating the AO's premise for addition. However, an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 8,58,000/- was sustained.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment order, on which the penalty was levied, was quashed by the Tribunal itself, the penalty must also fall. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by directing the AO to reopen assessments for years not under appeal. However, the issue of unexplained cash deposits and credits was also considered.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without complying with the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, specifically the requirement to show escapement of income due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Consequently, the reassessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to interest on tax-free bonds and expatriate salaries. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal on the issue of comparable companies for transfer pricing, but allowed it on other grounds not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the source of funds and rotation of funds amongst group companies were substantiated with supporting documents like fund flow statements, bank statements, and balance sheets. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received by the assessee were capital in nature, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case and Supreme Court judgments. The subsidies were therefore to be treated as a reduction in the cost of acquisition of assets.
The Tribunal held that the interest income is taxable in the hands of the assessee as per the India-Netherlands DTAA. However, it allowed some grounds for statistical purposes while dismissing others, leading to a mixed outcome.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's approach of determining ALP as Nil for royalty/branding fees and referral fees was incorrect, especially when the assessee had provided evidence of services received and benefits derived. Similarly, for indirect overhead expenses, an ad-hoc approach without following prescribed methods was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments with another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), even if the latter is a co-operative bank. The insertion of Section 80P(4) does not negate this deduction for the investing society.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances related to interest on tax-free bonds and expatriate salaries. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal on the issue of comparable companies for transfer pricing, but allowed it on other grounds not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that it was not clear if the assessee was specifically directed to provide details of activities for the last three years. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the applications for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. However, an estimation of profit element from disputed purchases is justified. Following a coordinate bench decision, the profit element was estimated at 2%.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's business had thin margins and incurred losses due to competition and high commissions, the onus was on the assessee to substantiate expenses. However, the 30% disallowance was deemed excessive.
The Tribunal held that since the addition was based on estimation and information from external sources without independent inquiry by the AO, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) were not attracted. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to substantiate any incriminating material found and seized pertaining to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material to form an opinion for reopening. The cross-examination of the developer's representative denied receiving on-money from the assessee, and the AO failed to provide evidence to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment for Rs. 8,79,915/- was wrongly made as the amounts pertained to bonus, leave encashment, and employer contribution to provident fund, all covered under Section 43B and paid before the due date. Similarly, the adjustment for MLWF was deleted as it was paid before the due date.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent in a similar case for a prior assessment year, found the addition of 12.65% to be on the higher side. It restricted the addition to 8% of the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. However, an estimation of profit element from disputed purchases is justified. Following a coordinate bench decision, the profit element was estimated at 2%.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, providing a 5% tolerance band for variations between sale consideration and stamp duty value, is retrospective. Since the difference in this case was 4.88%, it fell within the permissible limit.
The Tribunal held that issuing bonds against existing liabilities does not constitute repayment of loans in violation of Section 269T. The CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by doubting the genuineness of original loan transactions in penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the need for substantial justice over technicalities and following precedent. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for eligible flats, excluding those that violated the conditions.