Loading ITAT cases…
412 orders · Page 1 of 9
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not permissible as it amounted to a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues in earlier assessment years were decided in favor of the assessee and accepted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the digital signing of the assessment order is an integral part of its completion. Since the order was digitally signed on October 1, 2021, it was considered barred by limitation, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the merits of the case were not examined.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to multiple opportunities granted by the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was not supported by reasons, indicating a non-application of mind. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that only business income is hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). Other income not derived from commercial activity remains eligible for exemption under Section 11, especially when the primary activity resulted in losses.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was indeed passed after the expiry of the limitation period and was therefore a nullity. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the assessee's primary contention regarding limitation was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant assessee did not respond to multiple opportunities granted by the first appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits afresh, with a direction to the assessee to be diligent.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that only business income is hit by the proviso to Section 2(15). Other income not derived from commercial activity remains eligible for exemption under Section 11, especially when the primary activity resulted in losses.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not passed within the limitation period. It relied on judicial precedents emphasizing that a signed assessment order or at least a signed determination of tax liability is required before the expiry of the limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable. The appellant consistently maintained a stand of being a small businessman, admitting a profit of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on a turnover of Rs. 31.5 lakhs. The Revenue treated all cash deposits as income without considering withdrawals. Reliance Petroproducts case was deemed applicable, and the appellant had already paid tax and interest on the deposits.
The Departmental Representative submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold limit of Rs. 60,00,000, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. Therefore, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was indeed below the threshold and agreed with the withdrawal.
The Tribunal, following the decision in PCIT v. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co., held that purchases cannot be rejected without disturbing sales in case of a trader. Additions should be restricted to the extent of gross profit on impugned purchases.
The Tribunal, following the Bombay High Court precedent in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh, held that the penalty notice was invalid due to its ambiguity and failure to specify the exact charge. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deleted, and the assessee's jurisdictional ground was allowed, rendering other grounds academic.
The Tribunal held that the agreement between the assessee and Facebook Ireland Ltd. was crucial to determine the nature of services and whether they constituted royalty. Since the agreement was not produced, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
The Tribunal found that the commission income of Rs. 22,85,000, which appeared in Form 26AS for AY 2017-18, was indeed declared by the assessee in the profit and loss account for AY 2017-18. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the evidence relied upon by the AO, including loose papers and WhatsApp chats, was not sufficiently corroborated or properly established to warrant the additions. The tribunal is now hearing an appeal against this deletion.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income or expenses claimed. It also ruled that Rule 8D disallowance cannot be applied to Section 115JB. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for verification and restriction of disallowance.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished necessary details and documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the loan transactions. The bank statements and financial statements of the lenders indicated their capacity to lend. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had successfully discharged the initial burden under Section 68 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the liberty granted by the CIT(A) earlier and the principles of substantial justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 198 of the Income Tax Act deems tax deducted at source as income received. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim the TDS amount as tax paid while simultaneously refusing to offer the corresponding interest income for taxation.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2014-15 was bad in law as the time limit for issuing notice under Section 149 of the Act had expired on March 31, 2021. Consequently, all assessment orders for the years under consideration were quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the interest income itself might not be taxable due to non-receipt and the debtor's financial condition, the TDS deducted on this amount cannot be ignored. The assessee cannot claim TDS credit without offering the corresponding income, nor can they use the TDS to offset other income if they choose the cash system for this component.
The Tribunal noted that the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue has been enhanced by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. This circular applies to pending appeals as well. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when exempt income is earned on shares held as stock-in-trade, following previous judgments. Regarding Section 115JB, the Tribunal noted that specific provisions of the Banking Regulation Act govern the bank's financial statements, making Schedule III of the Companies Act inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2014-15 was bad in law as the time limit for issuing notice under Section 149 of the Act had expired on March 31, 2021. Consequently, all assessment orders for the years under consideration were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263 based on audit objections without independent application of mind. Furthermore, it was held that revision on smaller consequential issues is unsustainable when the larger issue is pending before the appellate authority.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity of being heard due to the gap in notices. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the defect memo regarding the shortage in appeal fee. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the appeal in limine, granting liberty to file a fresh appeal upon payment of the requisite fee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided a notarized translated renovation agreement and had accounted for the expenses in their books and balance sheet, which was not disputed. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the claim for the cost of improvement and granted indexation benefit from the year the cost was incurred.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly allowed the deduction u/s 80ID, deleted additions on opening balances of unsecured loans, and deleted disallowances of salary and commission.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Mohmmad Haji Adam & Co. The High Court's decision stated that additions should be restricted to bring the gross profit rate on purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases. Since the assessee claimed a gross profit rate of 4%, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification and consideration of TDS and foreign tax credit in accordance with law. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had already directed the AO to verify these aspects.
The Tribunal found that the TPO/AO did not record any finding that the information provided by the assessee was inaccurate or insufficient to determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP). Importantly, any Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment made by the TPO was subsequently deleted by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and accepted by the Revenue. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled that penalty u/s 271G is not sustainable under these circumstances, especially when there was no lack of bonafides or supine indifference from the assessee in providing records.
The Tribunal found that the basis for the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 40% of the claim was not clearly discernible. Given the submissions by the Revenue, it was deemed appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This would involve calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and providing an opportunity for both parties to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2014-15 was bad in law as the time limit for issuing notice under Section 149 of the Act had expired on March 31, 2021. Consequently, all assessment orders for the years under consideration were quashed.
The Tribunal held that there was no finding by the TPO/AO that the information provided by the assessee was inaccurate or insufficient, nor was there any lack of bonafides. The penalty under Section 271G was unsustainable because the TPO had accepted the benchmarking done by the assessee, and subsequent TP adjustments were deleted by the DRP and accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that joint ownership of other residential properties does not disentitle an assessee from claiming deduction under Section 54F. Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Jurisdictional High Court's ruling in the assessee's own case. The disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fees and interest was confirmed to be not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and acknowledged that another appeal on the same matter has already been adjudicated.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for admission of additional evidence, including a Form 26A certificate. Since this evidence was submitted, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for consideration of the new evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the addition of 3% on purchases from one party was already accepted. Citing a precedent from the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal held that additions should be restricted to the profit margin (GP rate) on purchases rather than disallowing the entire purchase amount. Therefore, the AO was directed to recompute the addition at a 3% rate for the remaining two parties.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when exempt income is earned on shares held as stock-in-trade, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision. The applicability of Section 115JB was also decided based on a Special Bench ruling.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, holding that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is warranted when exempt income is earned on shares/stocks held as stock-in-trade. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2014-15 was bad in law as the time limit for issuing notice under Section 149 of the Act had expired on March 31, 2021. Consequently, all assessment orders for the years under consideration were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the basis for the CIT(A)'s decision to allow 40% of the claim was not clearly discernible. Given the submissions by the Revenue, it was deemed appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This would involve calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and providing an opportunity for both parties to be heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the AO wrongly relied on Clause 23 of the Tax Audit Report, which pertains to payments to specified persons u/s 40A(2)(b), instead of the relevant clause for TDS non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections with a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10CCB before the due date is directory, not mandatory, especially when filed before the return of income. The delay was due to inadvertence and technical errors.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously quashed the original assessment regarding the bogus long-term capital gain. Therefore, the addition of commission, being consequential to the quashed addition, did not have a legal basis to stand. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted this consequential addition.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions and Supreme Court judgments, held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is warranted when exempt income is earned on shares and stocks held as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest income of Rs. 1,53,73,042/- (comprising Rs. 1,45,82,918/- interest received from others and Rs. 7,90,124/- interest on FD) is to be taxed under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. However, the Tribunal also ruled that the interest expenses of Rs. 1,97,13,918/- incurred by the assessee are deductible against this interest income. The reasoning is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Seth R. Dalmia v. CIT, which allows deduction of expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income, provided they are not capital or personal expenses and have a clear nexus with the income sought to be earned. The Tribunal found that the interest expenses were incurred for business purposes and had a direct link to the interest income earned. Therefore, the net interest expense of Rs. 43,40,876/- should be set off against the interest income. The Tribunal directed that the taxable income from 'Income from Other Sources' should be recomputed by deducting the eligible interest expenses from the gross interest income, resulting in a loss from other sources. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2014-15 was bad in law as the time limit for issuing notice under Section 149 of the Act had expired on March 31, 2021. Consequently, all assessment orders for the years under consideration were quashed.