Loading ITAT cases…
270 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was infructuous. The Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated any issue on merits in the impugned order dated 14.06.2023. Instead, the Ld. CIT(A) had disposed of the duplicate appeal filed by the assessee on a technical ground, observing that the original manual appeal filed on 11.04.2016 had already been accepted and decided on merits. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the Revenue against the order disposing of the duplicate appeal was dismissed as there was no prejudice caused to the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue should have filed an appeal against the original appellate order which was disposed of by the Ld. CIT(A) on merits. No finding was given on the merits of the additions made by the AO or the extent of the addition.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings as bad in law ab initio. The Tribunal observed that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) after verification of exemptions claimed under Section 10. The reassessment was initiated to verify the same issues, and the AO was aware of the coordinate bench decision in favour of the assessee for AY 2017-18. The AO's stated reason for reopening was to 'keep the matter alive', which the Tribunal found to be an abuse of power and a clear change of opinion, demonstrating an unwillingness to accept the decision of a higher body. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee regarding the reassessment being bad in law was allowed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the merits of the denial of exemptions under Sections 10(23FB), 10(34), and 10(35), or the issue of double taxation, as the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, which violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the assessee had attempted to provide submissions and documents.
The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments regarding improper notice and hearing to be factually correct. The notice for hearing was sent to an incorrect email address, and the order was passed before the specified response date.
The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for leasehold improvements and related legal charges were revenue in nature and incurred for business purposes. The Assessing Officer's reasoning that these expenses were not related to operational income was found to be flawed. The Tribunal noted that no capital asset was created by these expenditures.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied if the addition is made on an estimated basis. The AO had made the addition based on an estimated percentage of gross profit on alleged bogus purchases. Following various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on information that the assessee had carried out bogus share transactions of Rs. 10 lakhs in M/s Suryadeep Salt Refinery & Chemical Works Ltd., which was admitted by a hawala operator. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not carried out any such share transaction claiming business income or capital gain. The correct fact, as brought to the AO's notice by the assessee, was that it had received share application money of Rs. 40 lakhs from M/s Suryadeep Salt Refinery & Chemical Works Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that the reasons recorded by the AO must be tested on a standalone basis and must be based on correct facts. The AO had reopened the assessment based on a wrong assumption of fact, failing to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the correct facts. The Tribunal distinguished between 'Reason to Suspect' and 'Reason to Believe', stating that adverse information might trigger suspicion but not belief, which is a prerequisite for reopening. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was vitiated and bad in law, rendering the re-assessment order non-est. The addition of Rs. 40 lakhs was not sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-compliant before the first appellate authority and had failed to provide any written submissions or supporting documentary evidence. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues have been decided in favor of the assessee by referring to decisions of the Kerala High Court and previous ITAT orders, allowing the claim for deduction of interest income.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the assessee's own case for earlier years resulted in a restricted addition of 12.5% of bogus purchases, reduced by the gross profit rate declared. Following this precedent and observing that the assessee had declared a GP rate higher than 12.5%, the Tribunal held that no disallowance was warranted on account of additional GP. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that while the Ld. CIT(A) had provided opportunities on several occasions, the assessee could not appear or utilize them. However, considering the totality of facts, the submissions of the Ld. AR, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also perused the additional evidence furnished, finding that it went to the root of the matter, and therefore admitted it. These evidences were not available for verification at the time of the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored all the additional evidences and the issue in hand to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee was directed to file all the evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and cooperate with the proceedings, while the Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the scheme of merger had commercial rationale and was sanctioned by the High Court. The purported loss was not an artificial loss created to avoid tax, especially since it was already disallowed by the amalgamating company.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment proceedings were conducted during the Covid-19 period, and the assessee claimed they were not given a proper opportunity to explain their case. The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) made additions and sustained them without proper consideration of documents and explanations. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal addressed the grounds raised by both the assessee and the revenue. Regarding the disallowance of club membership fees (Revenue's Ground No. 2), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance of INR 1,09,164. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd., holding that club membership expenses incurred by the assessee are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1). Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this ground of the revenue. The judgment excerpt provided does not contain the Tribunal's findings on the other grounds raised by the assessee (duty drawback, Section 80G, DDT, Section 234C) or the revenue's ground regarding Section 80IC. The operative part of the order states that the appeal preferred by the assessee as well as the appeal preferred by the revenue is partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues have been decided in favor of the assessee by this Tribunal, citing other ITAT and Kerala High Court decisions that allow such deductions. Therefore, the Tribunal followed these precedents.
The Tribunal noted that the services were rendered by non-resident agents outside India and the payments were made outside India. Relying on decisions of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court, it was held that such commission income cannot be deemed to have accrued or arisen in India. The assessee's agents did not have a Permanent Establishment in India.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was given opportunities for hearing but did not effectively present its case, citing reasons like COVID impact. However, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to submit all details without seeking further adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient reason due to the assessee not receiving notices and the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them for want of prosecution, as the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's explanation and the filed return of income. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the documents, though kept in Calcutta and delayed due to the Covid pandemic, were crucial for a merit-based decision. The Tribunal found it imperative to examine and verify these documents.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of parties and the genuineness of transactions before the AO and CIT(A). Even before the Tribunal, no supporting documentary evidence was provided. The CIT(A) had not decided the issues on merits, hence the case was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient reason due to the assessee not receiving notices and the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them for want of prosecution, as the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee and their current AR did not receive the notices from the Ld. CIT(A). The ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A) was found to be a violation of natural justice as it was not decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO, violating principles of natural justice. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company Vs. CIT, it was decided that the assessment order must be made after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the transfer pricing adjustment. It noted that while the CIT(A) initially favored the Resale Price Method, the assessee itself adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method in subsequent years, which was also accepted by the TPO for deleting the addition. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the comparables selected by the CIT(A) for the TNMM analysis.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee played an active role in identifying, coordinating, and supervising third-party services, a mark-up on reimbursements would be necessitated. However, if the assessee acted solely as a conduit without adding value, no mark-up would be applicable.
The Tribunal observed that for Ground No. 1, the issue regarding the sale of shares had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT and was pending before the High Court, with no incriminating material found. For Ground No. 2, it was held that no addition could be made without incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is applicable only when there is an actual receipt of income which does not form part of the total income. If no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year, Section 14A will not apply. The Tribunal further noted that the amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not retrospective.
The Tribunal held that the TNMM method was appropriate for benchmarking the transaction, as opposed to the CUP method used by the TPO. It found that the transaction was secured and did not carry the risk assumed by the TPO.
The Tribunal held that the TNMM method was appropriate for benchmarking the transaction, as opposed to the CUP method used by the TPO. It found that the transaction was secured and did not carry the risk assumed by the TPO.
The tribunal held that accepting a cash loan, which is not considered income, cannot lead to escapement of income. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were quashed, and consequently, the addition made by the AO was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) rightly invoked Section 147 for reassessment, finding sufficient material to believe income had escaped assessment. Grounds related to the reopening, unexplained expenditure, depreciation disallowance, and interest on loan were dismissed due to lack of substantiating evidence from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that income arising from write-backs of provisions and sundry credits, even if pertaining to the pre-tonnage tax era, should be considered as income from core activity under the tonnage tax scheme. The Tribunal also found that sundry receipts were also to be treated as part of the core activity.
The Tribunal held that the TNMM method was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transaction, as data for the CUP method was unavailable. The Tribunal also noted that similar transactions were accepted by the TPO in earlier years.
The Tribunal held that the ground regarding unexplained stock addition is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination of additional evidence admission. Regarding the bogus salary expenses, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' orders confirming the disallowance, as the HR manager's statement and other evidence supported the finding of bogus payments made on the management's instructions.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred for arranging the India International Bullion Summit was revenue in nature and allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal followed its own Coordinate Bench's decision in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding assessment year, AY 2014-15. In that decision, the Tribunal had noted that the expenditure, though classified as a capital expenditure by the auditors and shown as an intangible asset, was in fact revenue expenditure. The Tribunal reasoned that the expenditure was part of the profit-earning process to enable the assessee to carry on its business. Even if it provided some 'enduring benefit', it could not be held as capital expenditure. The Tribunal also noted that similar expenditures on summits had been allowed as revenue expenditure by the AO in AY 2018-19 and by the Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2015-16, and accepted in AY 2016-17 and 2019-20. The detailed breakdown of expenses, including decoration, advertisement, catering, and event management, further supported its revenue character. The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure did not create a long-term asset or an intangible asset giving an enduring benefit or creating a profit-making apparatus. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the addition related to cash deposits to the AO for further inquiry, finding that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the depositors. However, the addition on account of commission income was deleted as it was already recorded in the books.
The Tribunal held that the TNMM method was appropriate for benchmarking the transaction, as opposed to the CUP method used by the TPO. It found that the transaction was secured and did not carry the risk assumed by the TPO.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the prior period interest deduction for AY 2011-12. However, it agreed that the write-back of this interest in AY 2012-13 should not be taxed again, allowing the assessee to seek appropriate remedies for that year.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were not valid as they indicated escapement of income in the hands of the share-issuing company, not the assessee. Therefore, the reopening was invalid.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider the documents filed by the assessee and passed an ex-parte assessment order. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions before the lower authorities. However, considering the assessee's request for another opportunity, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The AO's adverse inference based on statements recorded behind the assessee's back was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged its initial onus by providing bank accounts, annual reports, and income tax returns of the lenders to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The AO failed to conduct further inquiries to disprove the discharged onus.
The Tribunal held that the sale consideration cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 as the purchase was accepted and sale was through stock exchange via banking channels. Consequently, the addition for estimated commission expenses was also deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the addition related to cash deposits to the AO for further inquiry, finding that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the depositors. However, the addition on account of commission income was deleted as it was already recorded in the books.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of IT cost allocation back to the TPO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee's appeal on this point for statistical purposes. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claim for interest under Section 244A, following a co-ordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. It deleted additions related to unsecured loans from specific parties after finding the assessee had discharged the onus. The issue of interest disallowance was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the TNMM method was appropriate for benchmarking the transaction, as opposed to the CUP method used by the TPO. It found that the transaction was secured and did not carry the risk assumed by the TPO.
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the reasons provided by the assessee, including the inadvertent selection of an incorrect section code and the subsequent procedural issues, fell within the parameters for condonation as laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules are subservient to substantial justice and that the assessee did not benefit from the delay. Regarding the substantive issue of 80G approval, the Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case (ITA No. 3485/Mum/2023) had restored the application for regular registration under section 12AB to the file of the CIT(E) due to a lack of proper notice. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and restored the assessee's application for approval under section 80G to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after the decision on the 12AB application. The CIT(E) was directed to pass an order in accordance with the law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments in other co-operative societies/banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, even after the insertion of Section 80P(4).