Loading ITAT cases…
412 orders · Page 6 of 9
The Tribunal held that the amendment increasing the tolerance band from 5% to 10% under section 56(2)(x) is clarificatory and retrospective. Since the difference between the stamp duty value and the purchase consideration was less than 10% of the consideration, the addition was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was defective as it was issued in the wrong name, which was not a mere clerical error but a substantial defect. Relying on Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court precedents, the Tribunal found the reasons for reopening to be vague and presumptive, quashing the notice and consequently the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully invested the long-term capital gains of Rs. 3,29,26,831 in the new residential property by the extended due date of 31/12/2021. It further ruled that stamp duty and registration charges paid for the new property are an integral part of the cost of acquisition and thus eligible for deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to restrict the addition to the gross profit rate on bogus purchases, applying the same rate as for genuine purchases. It emphasized that a 100% disallowance is not justified when sales are not doubted. The matter was remanded to the AO for recalculation with an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not present documentary evidence to the lower authorities due to non-receipt of hearing notices, leading to a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for reconsideration.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal, stating that relief had already been obtained through rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the original intimation under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that disallowance under section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income is earned. The revenue's appeals were dismissed as they could not produce contrary judgments. The disallowance for AY 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 12,85,92,373/- was deleted.
The Tribunal, by following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Rohan Korgaonkar and the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd., held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1)(a) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF is valid, even if the assessment order was framed under Section 143(1)(a) and not 143(3). The fact that the contributions were deposited beyond the due date makes the disallowance applicable.
The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, held that while the requirement to claim a deduction under Section 80P in the return of income is mandatory, the timing of filing the return itself is directory. Therefore, a claim made during assessment proceedings or in a belated return is valid. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' order and remitted the matter to the AO to re-examine the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P on its merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest expenses on investment in a foreign subsidiary back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, directing the assessee to substantiate its claim. The issue of TDS credit was also remanded for verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that merely making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied on an estimated addition, which is not sustainable. The Tribunal distinguished the cases relied upon by the revenue and relied on precedents where penalty on estimated disallowance of expenses was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the explanation regarding the trustee's ill health, supported by medical evidence, constituted a 'sufficient cause' for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was deemed unintentional and beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay. Considering that the merits of the case had not been adjudicated by the CIT(A), the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present further evidence.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal agreed with the PCIT's finding that the AO had failed to conduct adequate inquiry regarding the allowability of interest expenses claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders without sufficient details from the assessee. In the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case on merits by setting aside the impugned order and restoring the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2015-16 was barred by limitation as it was issued after March 31, 2022, as per the proviso to Section 149(1)(b). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 3712 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's director's affidavit, stating that the intimation under Section 143(1) was not received until February 22, 2023, was unrebutted and deserved to be treated as a bonafide and sufficient cause. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Sambhaji and Ors V Gangabai and Ors, the Tribunal emphasized that procedural law is subservient to justice and should not prevent parties from participating in the dispensation of justice. To advance the cause of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 30 days and files proof of payment with the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted ITR and tax audit report for AY 2018-19 showing a turnover of Rs. 2 crores, which suggests a verifiable business model. The AO had not adequately verified this claim. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of the business model and its existence.
The Tribunal held that even if the assessee did not appear, the appellate authority should have decided the appeal on its merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals are restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, 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), as a co-operative bank remains a co-operative society. The disallowance by the AO was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, pursuant to a direction/order dated 26.03.2018 by the Ld. CIT. However, a previous order by the Tribunal had set aside the Pr. CIT's orders dated 26.03.2018. Consequently, the assessment orders, being based on a quashed foundation, were considered void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that disallowance under section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income is earned. The revenue's appeals were dismissed as they could not produce contrary judgments. The disallowance for AY 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 12,85,92,373/- was deleted.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that disallowance under section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income is earned. The revenue's appeals were dismissed as they could not produce contrary judgments. The disallowance for AY 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 12,85,92,373/- was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, pursuant to a direction/order dated 26.03.2018 by the Ld. CIT. However, a previous order by the Tribunal had set aside the Pr. CIT's orders dated 26.03.2018. Consequently, the assessment orders, being based on a quashed foundation, were considered void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that disallowance under section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income is earned. The revenue's appeals were dismissed as they could not produce contrary judgments. The disallowance for AY 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 12,85,92,373/- was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases and that the addition was necessitated due to potential revenue leakage. Following a coordinate bench decision and a High Court judgment, the disallowance was restricted to 5% of the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(23FB) and Section 10(35) operate independently and are not mutually exclusive. The CIT(A) correctly allowed the exemption for dividend income under Section 10(35) as it was distinct from income from Venture Capital Undertakings.
The Tribunal held that reopening after 4 years without failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts is invalid. Furthermore, issuing notices to a non-existent entity post-amalgamation renders the reopening invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening after 4 years without failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts is invalid. Furthermore, issuing notices to a non-existent entity post-amalgamation renders the reopening invalid.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 14A of the Finance Act, 2022, which deal with disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, do not have retrospective effect. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision on this aspect was upheld. Regarding Section 94(7), the Tribunal found that the AO was denied a reasonable opportunity for verification, and thus remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the assessee's own money was routed back or that there was any nexus with price rigging. The additions were based on third-party statements without proper substantiation.
The Tribunal noted that the bank account and KYC were in the assessee's name, and the transactions were never adequately explained by the assessee. While an affidavit from Mr. Chundawat accepting responsibility was presented, the Tribunal found it unreliable without supporting evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the bank account and KYC were in the assessee's name, preventing them from disowning ownership. Considering the new evidence, including the friend's affidavit, and the lack of proper explanation before lower authorities, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing them to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to present all evidence and adjudicate the case on merits in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that both conditions for invoking Section 50C(2) were met, as the Stamp Duty Authority's value exceeded the actual sale consideration and was not disputed in any appeal or reference. Therefore, the AO erred in not referring the valuation to the DVO, and the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's request for DVO valuation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the additions made by the AO. It noted that the assessee's application under Section 11(3A) for extension was pending, and the revised Form 10 should be considered for determining accumulated funds.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(23FB) and Section 10(35) operate independently and are not mutually exclusive. The CIT(A) correctly allowed the exemption for dividend income under Section 10(35) as it was distinct from income from Venture Capital Undertakings.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The assessee's argument that the issue was already considered by the AO and that no verification was done by the AO was not accepted. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had correctly identified that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to lack of proper inquiry and verification regarding the unsecured loans.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for General BSS do not constitute 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS) as they do not 'make available' technical knowledge to the recipient. The Tribunal relied on a High Court decision that reversed an AAR ruling on similar services.
The Tribunal observed that the details submitted by the assessee, including financial statements and proof of VAT returns, were not considered by either the AO or the CIT(A). Consequently, the issue of the unexplained cash deposit (grounds 1-4) was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The grounds related to penalty (ground 5) were dismissed as premature, and interest (ground 6) was deemed consequential.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 10(23FB) and Section 10(35) operate independently and are not mutually exclusive. The assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(35) for dividend income as it did not violate any terms or regulations.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. While acknowledging the assessee's non-appearance, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merit. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative, and the CIT(A) was instructed to ensure observance of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition itself was deleted by a prior decision of the Coordinate Bench, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on that addition has no basis and cannot survive. The order of the Ld. CIT (A), which had cancelled the penalty, was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered were primarily managerial and did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the Indian company, thus not falling under the definition of FTS as per the India-UK Tax Treaty. Therefore, the income was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that GST/service tax reimbursement does not form part of the aggregate of amounts for computing profits under Section 44BB. This is because it is not an amount paid to the assessee on account of services rendered, but a tax collected and paid to the government.
The Tribunal held that the additions were made solely on the basis of a general investigation report without linking the assessee to any specific manipulation or providing corroborative evidence. Following a coordinate bench's decision on identical facts, the Tribunal deleted the impugned additions.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered were primarily managerial and did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the recipient. Therefore, they did not fall under the definition of FTS as per Article 13 of the India-UK Tax Treaty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, following previous decisions of co-ordinate benches. Consequently, the grounds related to attribution and estimation of profits became academic.
The Tribunal noted that the AO himself estimated the profit at 12.5% of the bogus purchases. Therefore, the direction by the CIT(A) to add only the gross profit element was found to be redundant as the AO had already made a profit addition based on an estimation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's trust deed and objects had not changed since its registration. Previous similar issues for AY 2012-13 were decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench. The CIT(Exemption) had also previously dropped proceedings to withdraw the registration.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unearned revenue from subscription services was not sustainable, following its own previous decisions and High Court rulings. It also directed the AO to re-examine TDS credit and advance tax credit claims and to recompute tax liability without levying interest under sections 234A and 234C.