Loading ITAT cases…
534 orders · Page 4 of 11
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing additions based solely on timing differences in revenue recognition between the assessee and its AEs are not sustainable. The TPO's approach of making additions based on reporting discrepancies without following prescribed methods under Section 92C was found to be ad-hoc and contrary to law.
The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E of the Act is not sustainable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant provisions for computation of such fee were introduced later. For periods on or after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed where applicable.
The tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E of the Act is not sustainable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant provisions for computation of such fee were introduced later. For periods on or after June 1, 2015, the levy is confirmed where applicable.
The Tribunal observed that although the assessee's conduct was non-compliant, the reply and documents were essential for proper adjudication. Therefore, for substantial justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate her claim. The case was remanded to the CIT for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 15% of payments made to sub-contractors and deleted the addition for commission expenses, finding no material to support higher disallowance or commission payment.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a meritorious adjudication and without considering submissions made during prior physical hearings, especially given the transition to a faceless regime. Citing the provisions of Section 250, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must pass a speaking order on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo meritorious adjudication, with directions for the assessee to be diligent.
The Tribunal found that the issue had a cascading effect starting from AY 2013-14 and that the outcome of that year's appeal had a direct bearing on subsequent years. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC disallowing the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was unsustainable because no intimation was provided to the assessee as per the proviso to section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the addition of Rs.1,86,757/- was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Courts on this matter.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the circumstances and the need for justice. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the documents submitted during the physical hearing, which violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Since the department had no objection to the assessee's application for withdrawal, the Tribunal granted the request. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were in furtherance of its objects of general public utility and were not purely commercial. The Tribunal relied on its own previous orders in the assessee's case and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which was the basis for the penalty under section 270A, had already been deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, there was no valid ground for imposing the penalty. Consequently, the penalty of Rs.15,54,648/- imposed on the assessee was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including conducting exhibitions, were in furtherance of its objects of promoting trade and business, falling under the general public utility category. The Tribunal found no deviation from the assessee's main objects and relied on previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's irresponsible conduct and defiance of notices but also acknowledged the delay in taking up the appeal, partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner could not decide the issues properly due to a lack of relevant documents. Therefore, for the ends of substantial justice, the case was remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings but, for the sake of natural justice, granted one more opportunity to present the case before the CIT(A). The issues were remanded for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 506 days in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee had explained a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's affidavit detailed significant financial problems, including insolvency proceedings before the NCLT, which led to mental stress and inability to pursue appeals diligently. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the grounds of appeal on merits. Considering the facts and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal of the appeals, and an adequate opportunity of hearing was to be provided. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order did not record any satisfaction by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings, and the penalty notice was issued after the assessment order was passed. The Tribunal also noted that no addition was made to the returned income, meaning no tax was sought to be evaded. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were initiated contrary to legal provisions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's own computation of disallowance under Section 14A is a mandatory prerequisite for invoking Rule 8D. Since the AO failed to record such satisfaction or explain why the assessee's calculation was incorrect, the application of Rule 8D was invalid, and the disallowance claimed by the appellant was allowed.
The Tribunal found that while the Assessee's non-compliance was due to personal difficulties and lack of professional assistance, the penalty cannot be deleted entirely. However, the AO did not consider the tax deducted at source (TDS) when calculating the tax sought to be evaded. Therefore, the AO is directed to re-compute the penalty after reducing the tax sought to be evaded by the amount of TDS.
While the reasons for the delay were considered unreasonable, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay due to the ex-parte nature of the original order and the need for substantial justice. The appeal was remanded to the Commissioner for a decision on merits.
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 previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Courts on this matter.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's laches in not appearing despite opportunities. However, considering the case's totality and that the previous order was not on merits, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not record any specific satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's disallowance, which is a prerequisite for invoking Rule 8D. The disallowance was made mechanically, contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the appellant to explain the allowability of the VRS deduction. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit, ensuring the appellant receives an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) had indeed rejected the application without considering the extensive submissions made by the assessee through e-proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) with directions to duly consider all submissions already on record and grant registration in accordance with the provisions of law, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the addition on which the penalty was levied was non-existent as the assessment order itself was quashed. Although the Revenue challenged the ITAT's order in the High Court, there was no stay against the ITAT's order. Therefore, the Tribunal found no perversity or illegality in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted the 49-day delay in filing the appeal, the absence of a proper condonation application, and the assessee's non-appearance for the hearing. Considering the assessee's overall non-compliant and non-vigilant conduct, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal in limine as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition on which the penalty was levied was non-existent as the assessment order itself was quashed. Although the Revenue challenged the ITAT's order in the High Court, there was no stay against the ITAT's order. Therefore, the Tribunal found no perversity or illegality in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the payment was not delayed as the due date was a Sunday and the EPFO had extended the due date. Therefore, the deduction should be allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of allowability of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned by cooperative societies on their investments is no longer res integra, having been decided by coordinate benches in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal followed the precedent set by coordinate benches of the ITAT and other High Courts.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) acknowledged the delay in filing Form 67 but found a reasonable cause for it, attributing it to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Relying on numerous judicial precedents from various High Courts and ITATs, which establish that the filing of Form 67 is directory, and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override the Income Tax Act and Rules, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to take a lenient view and allow the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) of Rs. 15,33,519.
The Tribunal found that the issue had a cascading effect starting from AY 2013-14 and that the outcome of that year's appeal had a direct bearing on subsequent years. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Courts on this matter.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee may have inadvertently filed two appeals for the same order, making the instant appeal a duplicate. Therefore, the appeal is considered not maintainable or infructuous.
The Tribunal observed that the transactions lacked identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. The assessee provided self-certified financials initially, which were later replaced by audited financials, raising suspicion. The company involved in the transactions, M/s. Ailish Traders Pvt. Ltd., was found to be a shell company with accumulated losses and a dubious financial history.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases, considering that the entire purchases could not be treated as non-genuine when sales were accepted. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merit due to the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue on its merits after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant, who was also directed to submit all relevant material.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified. However, it found that the transactions in shares of M/s. VAS Infrastructure Ltd. were genuine and conducted through a registered broker, resulting in a loss, not profit. Therefore, the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69C were deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee company did not earn any exempt income from its investments during the assessment year, no disallowance under section 14A could be made. Furthermore, any gain or loss on the transfer of shares from these foreign investments is taxable, not exempt.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition solely based on the erroneous mention of section 69A in the computation, while the body of the order referred to section 69, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that identical additions for the same issue were sustained in prior assessment years. Consequently, the ITAT upheld the AO's original addition of Rs. 42,47,000/- under section 69.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed its own co-ordinate bench decisions and the principle of favoring the assessee when there are divergent High Court views.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's regular filing and reasonable gross profit in past years, the case was remanded to the AO for recomputation of tax liability.
The Tribunal held that the present appeals were not maintainable and were infructuous. This was because they were duplicate filings against the same orders for the same assessment years, which were already under consideration in prior, identical appeals. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Covid-19 pandemic and the Hon'ble Apex Court's suo motu order. It held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), following previous ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had prima facie discharged the onus by providing bank statements and loan confirmations. The additions made by the Revenue authorities were based on assumptions and third-party statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, rendering them unsustainable.
The tribunal noted that a co-ordinate ITAT 'H' Bench had previously decided similar issues of bogus share capital/loans in the appellant's own case for AY 2014-15 in the appellant's favor, directing deletion of additions. Since the CIT(A) did not consider this binding precedent, the tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate all grounds of appeal after duly considering the Hon'ble ITAT 'H' Bench decision.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not applicable when no exempt income is earned. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not applicable when no exempt income is actually earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal also clarified that such disallowance cannot be added back to book profit for purposes of Section 115JB of the Act, relying on various High Court judgments. The Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the CIT(A)'s order.