Loading ITAT cases…
299 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal held that no transfer pricing adjustment can be made on a domestic transaction referred to the TPO after the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, even if the transaction occurred in an earlier assessment year. Disallowances under Section 14A were also partly deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 14A was excessive and directed its deletion. Regarding the foreign exchange gain, the Tribunal found it to be a capital receipt, not taxable as business income.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and conducted inquiries, and the assessment order did not suffer from the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's action of assuming jurisdiction under section 263 was not acceptable.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own earlier decisions for previous assessment years. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and conducted inquiries, and the assessment order did not suffer from the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Pr.CIT's action of assuming jurisdiction under section 263 was not acceptable.
The Tribunal held that the allotment letter, which fixed the consideration for the property, should be regarded as an agreement for the purposes of Section 56(2)(x). Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the provisos to Section 56(2)(x).
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds of appeal, finding the CIT(A)'s decisions to be legally correct and in consonance with judicial discipline. The assessee's cross-objection regarding the exempt income under Section 10(34) was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's operations did not constitute a Permanent Establishment in India. It found that RGA Services, an Indian entity, did not have the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee and lacked the necessary licenses to act as a reinsurer or broker.
The Tribunal held that the AO's enhancement of the Section 14A disallowance was unwarranted and directed its deletion. Regarding the foreign exchange gain, the Tribunal found it to be a capital receipt not exigible to tax, overturning the AO's decision to tax it under Section 28(iv).
The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not referring the matter to the valuation officer as mandated by Section 50(C)(2) when the assessee objected to the stamp duty value. The CIT(A) also erred by dismissing the appeal without considering the merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO's enhanced disallowance under Section 14A was unwarranted and directed its deletion. Regarding the foreign exchange gain, the Tribunal found it to be a capital receipt and not taxable as business income under Section 28(iv).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the provisions of section 270AA(1) by paying the tax and seeking immunity. However, the application in the prescribed form number 68 was delayed due to technical glitches on the IT portal during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the assessee had provided evidence of this. The Tribunal noted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee before rejecting the immunity application.
The Tribunal held that the CIT invoked Section 263 based on the AO's proposal, without forming an independent opinion. Furthermore, the CIT's finding that no reference was made to the TPO was contrary to the facts, as a reference was made within the extended time limit provided by the Taxation and Other Laws (Regulation of Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases from the suppliers of bills, the revenue did not doubt the usage of materials for construction work. Therefore, a reasonable disallowance was deemed appropriate to account for potential revenue leakage.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary submissions and documents to substantiate its claim before the lower authorities, leading to ex-parte decisions. However, considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the addition under Section 69 was not justified as the investment was not recorded in the assessee's books. The tribunal also noted that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to jurisdictional issues.
The Tribunal held that the activity of printing, publishing, and distribution of journals and magazines is incidental to the objects of the trust. The exemption under Section 11 was allowed, and the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.
The Tribunal held that while the scheme of amalgamation was approved by the NCLT, this approval does not override the requirement to compute the arm's length price under the Income Tax Act. The valuation reports submitted by the assessee were not based on a scientific basis and were considered predetermined by management.
The Tribunal held that the 10% tolerance band for the difference between purchase consideration and fair market value, as amended, applies retrospectively. Since the difference was 9.14%, which is within the 10% limit, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the documents or called for remand reports in several instances. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the AO were defective/invalid because they did not clearly specify the exact charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) for which the penalty was being levied. This lack of specificity rendered the penalty proceedings bad in law, as per the High Court's decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54 was not bonafide due to the initial misrepresentation of the flat number and the subsequent submission of documents that did not fully support the claim. The Tribunal noted the discrepancies and the lack of proper documentation for the claimed deduction.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adequate opportunity for hearing, despite the assessee raising grounds challenging the additions. Considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication.
The reopening of the assessment was based on reasons recorded on 28/03/2014, and administrative approval was granted by the Joint Commissioner. However, there was no specific recorded satisfaction by the competent authority that it was a fit case for issuing the notice under Section 148, as mandated by Section 151(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed on Apex Court and High Court judgments which quashed notices under Section 148 for non-compliance with statutory safeguards.
The reopening of the assessment was based on reasons recorded on 28/03/2014, and administrative approval was granted by the Joint Commissioner. However, there was no specific recorded satisfaction by the competent authority that it was a fit case for issuing the notice under Section 148, as mandated by Section 151(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed on Apex Court and High Court judgments which quashed notices under Section 148 for non-compliance with statutory safeguards.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. For three parties, the credits were opening balances, not received during the year. For the fourth party, evidence showed the funds were an advance from a property sale, establishing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness.
The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings were challenged on grounds of lack of tangible material and violation of the first proviso to Section 147, but these grounds were dismissed. However, regarding the addition, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's gross profit margin was around 7-8%, which was already offered to tax. Therefore, the addition was restricted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the AO were defective/invalid because they did not clearly specify the exact charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) for which the penalty was being levied. This lack of specificity rendered the penalty proceedings bad in law, as per the High Court's decision in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had considered non-compliance and lack of proper explanation for the delay, principles of natural justice require giving the assessee another opportunity. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow the assessee to explain the delay with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not make an addition on a different ground or quantum than the one for which the reassessment was initiated, citing the judgment in CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Private Limited. Therefore, the addition made was invalid.
The Tribunal observed that the AO ought to have examined the assessee's plea in light of the Tax Audit Report (TAR)/Form 3CD and verified the facts. The Tribunal noted that technicalities should not come in the way of substantive justice, and the AO failed to examine the assessee's plea. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal decided to adjudicate the grounds together as they were interrelated. The assessee had invested Rs. 3,41,37,000/- towards the purchase of a property via an agreement of sale dated 31st July 2017, before filing the return. The AO disallowed the Section 54 deduction because the property was not registered and possession was not taken, citing Suraj Lamp. The CIT(A) confirmed this. The assessee argued that the delay in registration and possession was due to legal impediments concerning Aamby Valley and that Section 54 requires investment in purchase, not necessarily completed ownership. The assessee relied on ITAT decisions in Shri Hasmukh N. Gala and Bhavana Cuccria, emphasizing that advances paid for purchase/acquisition constitute utilization and that the completion of purchase/construction is assessed only after the window period. The Tribunal noted that the Suraj Lamp decision pertains to the Transfer of Property Act, not Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, and that the Supreme Court has interpreted 'purchase' more broadly for Section 54. The Tribunal found that the assessee had invested capital gains towards the purchase of the property, and the delay in registration/possession was due to circumstances beyond control. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54, as substantial compliance was made, and the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in disallowing it.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order-sheet noting did not constitute valid satisfaction as required by Section 153C. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 153C and the subsequent assessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied on a different limb (concealment of income) than the one for which proceedings were initiated and notice was issued (furnishing inaccurate particulars). This violated the principles of natural justice and amounted to non-application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the requisite satisfaction before initiating assessment proceedings under Section 153C. The order sheet entry relied upon by the AO did not demonstrate the formation of such satisfaction, rendering the assessment jurisdictionally flawed.
The Tribunal noted that due to the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), further proceedings in the appeal could not continue. Relying on previous judgments, it was held that the IBC provisions override other laws, and therefore, the appeal could not be adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the show-cause notice issued for levying the penalty was bad in law because it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The notice presented both options without striking down the inapplicable one, thus leaving the assessee in doubt and handicapped in defending itself.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Cisco Systems Services BV, which held that a draft assessment order accompanied by a notice of demand under section 156, issued in violation of section 144C procedures, is bad in law. Accordingly, the draft assessment orders and notices of demand for all assessment years were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that DRI/ED dropped proceedings against the assessee. The AO did not conduct independent inquiry into allegations of over-invoicing or bogus purchases. The CIT(A) rightly considered that the DRI/ED had dropped proceedings and that the AO had not doubted purchases and sales, hence estimated profit at 0.5% of turnover.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Cisco Systems Services BV, which held that a draft assessment order accompanied by a notice of demand under section 156, issued in violation of section 144C procedures, is bad in law. Accordingly, the draft assessment orders and notices of demand for all assessment years were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the due date for depositing employee PF and ESIC contributions is to be reckoned from the close of the month for which wages are payable, not from the date of actual wage disbursement. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the nature and source of the unsecured loan from the Director, Shri Hitesh Asrani, by providing his income computation, loan confirmation, and bank statements. The Tribunal also noted that the requirement to prove the 'source of source' for loans was not applicable under Section 68.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Cisco Systems Services BV, which held that a draft assessment order accompanied by a notice of demand under section 156, issued in violation of section 144C procedures, is bad in law. Accordingly, the draft assessment orders and notices of demand for all assessment years were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the due date for depositing employee PF and ESIC contributions is to be reckoned from the close of the month for which wages are payable, not from the date of actual wage disbursement. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the due date for depositing employee PF and ESIC contributions is to be reckoned from the close of the month for which wages are payable, not from the date of actual wage disbursement. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided evidence, including agreements and NCLT orders, to substantiate the unsecured loans and the interest paid. The AO failed to provide contrary material to disprove the genuineness of the loans and the interest expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in issuing the notice under section 148 and making assessment in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity. The transaction was between two partnership firms, and the assessee had provided partnership deeds and PAN of the firm, which the AO ignored. The reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal. It reasoned that the delay arose due to a genuine jurisdictional issue, as confirmed by the ITAT, Kolkata Bench, which had granted liberty to file the appeal before the appropriate bench with a prayer for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found the explanation reasonable and in the interest of justice. Regarding the substantive grounds (Issues 2), the Tribunal noted that the additions/disallowances pertained to normal business transactions. It acknowledged the assessee's submission that due to restructuring and change in management, proper documentation could not be furnished earlier. The Tribunal found that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by granting another opportunity. Therefore, the issues raised in Ground Nos. 3 to 10 were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh, with a direction to the assessee to provide proper explanations and documents. Ground Nos. 1, 2, and 11 were dismissed as infructuous. The Assessing Officer was granted liberty to conduct further inquiry as per law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the remand.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasoning that the assessee had no intention to repay was not a valid ground for addition under Section 41(1). The fact that the creditor initiated legal proceedings indicated a dispute, not a remission or cessation of liability, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 41(1).
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on a wrong premise as the assessee had not claimed exemption under Section 10(38) but offered intra-day trading profits. The entire proceedings were found to be frivolous and without application of mind by the lower authorities.