Loading ITAT cases…
522 orders · Page 4 of 11
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that interest under Section 201(1A) is not leviable if the TDS shortfall is rectified within the financial year as per Section 192(3). It also held that interest under Section 220(2) is not applicable as no demand notice was issued.
The Tribunal held that income exempt under Section 10 cannot be brought to tax under Section 11, following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. The matter was remanded to the AO for verifying the claim regarding tax deducted at source.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that interest under Section 201(1A) is not leviable if the TDS shortfall is rectified within the financial year as per Section 192(3). It also held that interest under Section 220(2) is not applicable as no demand notice was issued.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that interest under Section 201(1A) is not leviable if the TDS shortfall is rectified within the financial year as per Section 192(3). It also held that interest under Section 220(2) is not applicable as no demand notice was issued.
The Tribunal held that the non-receipt of income cannot be a ground to disallow interest expenditure, as long as the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income, as per Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The purpose of the expenditure is what matters, not its successful fruition into income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that interest under Section 201(1A) is not leviable if the TDS shortfall is rectified within the financial year as per Section 192(3). It also held that interest under Section 220(2) is not applicable as no demand notice was issued.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that interest under Section 201(1A) is not leviable if the TDS shortfall is rectified within the financial year as per Section 192(3). It also held that interest under Section 220(2) is not applicable as no demand notice was issued.
The Tribunal held that Section 192(3) allows for adjustments of TDS shortfalls within the financial year, and interest under Section 201(1A) is not leviable for mere short deductions if the total TDS is made good by the end of the year. The levy of interest under Section 220(2) was also deleted as no demand notice was issued.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, adopting a liberal approach as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay, attributing it to an email being sent to the spam folder, constituted a sufficient cause. Regarding the interest under Section 201(1A), the Tribunal ruled that it is not leviable if the entire tax deductible is deducted by the end of the financial year, even if there was a short deduction in earlier months, provided there are bonafide reasons and the shortfall is made good. The Tribunal found that Section 192(3) allows for adjustment of excess or deficiency, making the interest charge under Section 201(1A) inapplicable for mere short deduction in initial months when the total tax is collected by year-end. Consequently, grounds 1 to 4 were allowed in favour of the assessee. For ground 5, concerning interest under Section 220(2), the Tribunal held that this section applies only when an amount specified in a notice of demand under Section 156 is not paid within the stipulated period. As no such notice of demand was issued for the assessment years in question, the levy of interest under Section 220(2) was deleted, and this ground was also allowed. All eight appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that income exempt under Section 10 cannot be brought to tax under Section 11, following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. The matter was remanded to the AO for verifying the claim regarding tax deducted at source.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that interest under Section 201(1A) is not leviable if the TDS shortfall is rectified within the financial year as per Section 192(3). It also held that interest under Section 220(2) is not applicable as no demand notice was issued.
The Tribunal noted that the re-assessment proceedings were flawed due to double addition and lack of application of mind by the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the additions pertained to earlier years and were not fresh credits for the current year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had affirmed non-receipt of communications and sought an opportunity to make necessary compliances. Relying on judicial precedents regarding the proper service of notice and principles of natural justice, the Tribunal found it appropriate to grant one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that roaming charges paid to other service providers do not constitute 'fees for technical services' and thus TDS under Section 194J is not leviable. Similarly, discounts on prepaid SIM cards/vouchers are not in the nature of commission attracting TDS under Section 194H.
The Tribunal held that roaming charges paid to other service providers do not constitute 'fees for technical services' and therefore, the assessee was not in default for failing to deduct TDS on these payments. Consequently, any interest levied under Section 201(1A) on this amount was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to explain the documents and clarify the issues. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to explain the documents and clarify the issues. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that roaming charges do not constitute 'technical services' under Section 194J as the process is automatic and requires no human intervention, hence no TDS was deductible. For discounts on prepaid SIM cards/talk time, the relationship between the assessee and distributors was deemed 'principal to principal,' not 'principal to agent,' thus the discount was not commission liable for TDS under Section 194H. Consequently, disallowances made u/s 40(a)(ia) were directed to be deleted, and the issue of interest u/s 201(1A) related to discounts was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to explain the documents and clarify the issues. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the AO made the addition based on a presumption regarding commission income and stock valuation formula, which lacked sufficient material support. However, the assessee also failed to explain the incurring of losses without commission income.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied on a generalized report from the Investigation Wing without proving the assessee's involvement in price manipulation. Since documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the transactions and payments were through banking channels, the additions were not justified.
The Tribunal held that roaming charges paid to other service providers do not constitute 'fees for technical services' and thus, the assessee is not in default for non-deduction of TDS. It also held that discounts on prepaid SIM cards/talktime to distributors are not commission attracting TDS under Section 194H.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for cash payments relating to shops purchased by family members/others across AY 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, citing that tax should be levied on the actual investors and that for unabated assessments, additions require incriminating material found in the assessee's own search. The addition of Rs.18,64,200/- for the assessee's own shop in AY 2020-21 was also deleted, as it was based on uncorroborated third-party statements without cross-examination. The issue of stock shortage for AY 2021-22 was remanded to the AO for fresh examination due to lack of evidence from the assessee to support the fire claim and the authorities' presumptions.
The tribunal held that an effective hearing is essential for natural justice. The CIT(A) order did not provide an effective opportunity for hearing, and it was unclear if notices were duly served. Therefore, the matter needs to be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the property in the goods transferred at the port of shipment outside India, and no operations were carried out in India by the assessee in respect of its scope of work. Therefore, the income from offshore supplies is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence before the revenue authorities, violating the principles of natural justice. Both parties agreed to remand the matter.
The Tribunal held that for the addition related to unexplained jewellery, the matter should be restored to the AO for re-examination, to restrict the addition to the unreconciled amount of Rs.5,52,556/- if found correct. Regarding unexplained cash, the Tribunal held that the claim of Rs.7,49,811/- from the sale of silver articles should be considered available as the AO had accepted the long-term capital gains offered by the assessee. The claim of Rs.1,50,189/- from personal effects was rejected due to lack of evidence, and the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- was restored to the AO. For Smt. Veenadevi Singhania, the issue of cash balance of Rs.4,70,050/- was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on residential buildings provided for employees, citing the Madras High Court decision in CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. For the second issue, it was held that administrative and general overhead expenses are to be excluded from the cost of tangible fixed assets if they do not relate to a specific tangible fixed asset, referencing ICDS V and a previous bench decision.
The Tribunal held that roaming charges are not 'technical services' under Section 194J as they are automatic and do not require human intervention, thus no TDS is applicable. Regarding discounts on prepaid sim cards/talktime, the Tribunal concluded that the relationship between Vodafone and its distributors is principal-to-principal, meaning the discounts are not commission under Section 194H, and therefore, no TDS is required. The appeals were partly allowed, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowances.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic, which could be a reasonable cause for not filing documents. While the explanation for non-submission to the Ld. Commissioner due to miscommunication with the legal advisor was deemed illogical, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-appearance before the AO to be genuine due to the nationwide lockdown. Considering the facts and to provide substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the transactions represented money handling akin to angadia business and restricted the addition to the commission income of 0.30% (Rs. 2,45,572). For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal allowed a partial relief, reducing the addition after considering the assessee's income and prior year's confirmed addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions related to cash payments for shops purchased by others, emphasizing that additions must be made in the hands of the actual investor. For the Rs. 18.64 lakh addition related to the assessee's own shop, the Tribunal deleted it, citing lack of corroborative evidence and denial of cross-examination by the AO. Regarding the stock shortage for AY 2021-22, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh examination due to insufficient evidence from both sides. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's legal argument that additions for abated assessments must strictly rely on incriminating material found from the assessee, clarifying that all materials, including third-party evidence, can be considered under Section 153A for abated assessments.
The Tribunal held that the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal referred to Section 250(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the right to be heard at the hearing of an appeal. The Tribunal observed that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on various dates (21.07.2020, 27.01.2021, 27.12.2022, 06.01.2023) and the communication window opened on 01.11.2022, did not result in any response from the appellant. However, the impugned order itself indicated that there was no proof of due service or that the notices were brought to the notice of the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that an effective opportunity of hearing was not provided and that the principle of natural justice was violated. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for providing an effective hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in terms of this direction. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the original appeal.
The assessee's AR stated that a similar appeal (ITA No. 3323/Mum/2023) on the same grounds for the same assessment year was already decided in favor of the assessee. The AR argued that the present appeal is infructuous as the issue stands decided. The DR had no objections.
The Tribunal noted the Assessee's non-compliance and failure to provide documentary evidence before the lower authorities, leading to ex-parte orders. However, considering the facts and the need for substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal deleted additions for unexplained cash payments for AY 2018-19, 2019-20, and for other-purchased shops in AY 2020-21 and 2021-22, citing the 'right person' principle and lack of incriminating material or cross-examination for third-party information. The specific addition of Rs. 18,64,200/- for the assessee's own shop in AY 2020-21 was also deleted due to reliance on uncorroborated third-party statements. The stock shortage issue for AY 2021-22 was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination, as the tax authorities' and assessee's positions were based on presumptions and insufficient evidence, respectively. The assessee's legal contention that Section 153C proceedings were necessary for additions based on third-party material in abated assessments (AY 2020-21 & 2021-22) was rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal before it, finding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the revenue had not brought any contradictory facts to disprove the assessee's affidavit regarding his imprisonment and subsequent difficulties. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that Section 250(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates an effective hearing, not just a formality, to uphold the principles of natural justice. Examining the impugned order of the CIT(A), the Tribunal found that no effective opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee, and there was no proof of due service of notices on various dates. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order suffered from illegality as it was passed without giving the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for providing an effective hearing to the assessee within 60 days. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds for property purchase, prior to the insertion of specific provisions by the Finance Act, 2023, is deductible while computing capital gains. This decision followed various High Court judgments.
The Tribunal noted the Assessee's non-compliance and failure to provide documentary evidence before the lower authorities, leading to ex-parte orders. However, considering the facts and the need for substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was rightly imposed. The primary issue was the non-compliance with the notice dated 13.12.2019 issued under Section 142(1). The Tribunal found that this notice was issued well before the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown in Maharashtra, providing the assessee with sufficient time to comply. The assessee's claims regarding COVID-19 complications, hospitalization, staff absenteeism, and email issues were not substantiated with any documentary evidence. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the claimed email address 'ows@india.com' was incorrect, and the notice was sent to 'ows@live.in', which was consistently used by the assessee in their tax filings and appeal memo. The Tribunal also found the claim regarding the demise of the accountant unsubstantiated. The conduct of the assessee was characterized as passive and inactive towards statutory notices. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to furnish any credible material to justify their non-compliance. Therefore, the levy of penalty was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on surmises and conjectures, as the assessee had provided credible explanations and documentary evidence for the purchases. The revenue failed to contradict the assessee's submissions or conduct independent inquiries.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) had found that the transactions were explained by loan facilities and payments made by the co-owner of the property, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender, including PAN, ITR, confirmations, and bank statements. The repayment of the loan through banking channels further supported the transaction's genuineness. The Tribunal also noted the violation of natural justice as cross-examination was not granted.
For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the transactions represented money handling akin to angadia business and restricted the addition to the commission income of 0.30% (Rs. 2,45,572). For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal allowed a partial relief, reducing the addition after considering the assessee's income and prior year's confirmed addition.
For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the transactions represented money handling akin to angadia business and restricted the addition to the commission income of 0.30% (Rs. 2,45,572). For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal allowed a partial relief, reducing the addition after considering the assessee's income and prior year's confirmed addition.
The Tribunal held that income must be assessed in the hands of the person who actually made the investment. Since the assessee had only purchased one shop and other shops were purchased by different individuals, the additions made in the hands of the assessee for shops purchased by others were deleted. Regarding stock shortage, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the additions should be limited to bringing the Gross Profit (GP) rate on purchases to the same level as other genuine purchases, citing the jurisdictional High Court's decision. In this case, the GP rate on alleged bogus purchases was already higher than other genuine purchases. The Tribunal also referred to the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year where a similar addition was restricted to 2%.
The Tribunal remitted the issue of cash sales addition back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The addition for negative cash balance was deleted, and the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was upheld.
The Tribunal observed that the ground of reopening being bad in law was not raised before the Ld. Commissioner. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, to ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not disbelieve the transactions solely based on a generalized investigation report without specific material linking the assessee to price rigging. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the purchase and sale of shares through banking channels and stock exchanges.