Loading ITAT cases…
522 orders · Page 5 of 11
As per the NCLT direction, no suit or legal proceeding can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, with liberty granted to the appellant/revenue to seek restoration.
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 noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 426 days, which was condoned due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present documentary evidence to the CIT(E).
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 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 found that both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice. The AO violated these principles by providing inadequate opportunity for hearing to the assessee, issuing a show-cause notice with the same or an insufficient compliance date, and passing the order without adequate opportunity. The CIT(A) was also found to have erred by considering submissions and details for the first time and deleting additions without allowing the AO proper opportunity for investigation, as per Rule 46A. The Tribunal noted that both parties requested the case be sent back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The CIT(A) was directed to give proper and adequate opportunity to the AO as per Rule 46A by calling for a remand report and also grant a reasonable hearing to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to comply with notices and provide requested details.
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 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 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 the Assessing Officer failed to bring specific evidence of price rigging or a cash trail to support the additions. Relying on various High Court and ITAT precedents, the Tribunal found the additions to be based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, distribution network, and customer relations. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Smifs Securities Ltd. and the scheme of amalgamation which recognized these as intangible assets.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including bill-wise details, transporter confirmations, and ledger confirmations, to explain the transactions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the death of a family member causing mental stress is a reasonable cause for condoning the delay. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits. Section 56(2)(x) is for 'Capital Asset' and not for agricultural land.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to bring specific evidence of price rigging or a cash trail to support the additions. Relying on various High Court and ITAT precedents, the Tribunal found the additions to be based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal disposed of Ground No. 1 with the direction that the assessee's rectification application should be expedited and no adverse action be taken against the assessee until its disposal. Ground No. 2 was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to re-decide the issue considering the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) and the modified return of income. Ground No. 3 was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue of Section 80G deduction to the AO for fresh examination, following a coordinate bench decision. Grounds No. 4, 5, and 6 were also allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the AO to verify the issues related to interest levy and DDT credit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, distribution network, and customer relations. The Tribunal found that these were intangible assets acquired for consideration in the amalgamation and should be eligible for depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the depreciation schedule provides for a 60% depreciation rate on computers including software. As the software was used for trading applications in the assessee's business, it was eligible for depreciation at the rate of 60%.
The Tribunal condoned the 83-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the explanation of the treasurer's death as a bonafide and genuine reason. On merits, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the interest earned from Saraswat Co-operative Bank under Section 80P(2)(d) based on parity with subsequent assessment years where similar interest was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO incorrectly burdened the assessee with the entire purchase cost of the property. The actual investment made by the assessee was less and the property was declared in the balance sheet. The addition on account of the difference between stamp duty value and the deed value was also considered unreasonable as it was within the 10% threshold accepted for such discrepancies.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had restricted a similar addition/disallowance from 12.5% to 6% over and above the disclosed GP rate. Following this precedent and considering the facts, the addition was restricted to 6% over and above the disclosed GP rate.
Referring to an order from a Co-ordinate Bench where the disallowance rate for identical facts was restricted from 12.5% to 6%, the Tribunal deemed it reasonable to restrict the addition/GP rate to 6% over and above the Gross Profit (GP) rate already disclosed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the excess payment over the principal value for the acquisition of NCDs, ICDs, and Term Loans did not constitute 'interest' as defined in the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these amounts.
The Tribunal held that the excess payment over the principal value for the acquisition of NCDs, ICDs, and Term Loans did not constitute 'interest' as defined in the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these amounts.
The Tribunal held that the excess payment over the principal value for the acquisition of NCDs, ICDs, and Term Loans did not constitute 'interest' as defined in the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these amounts.
The Tribunal held that the excess payment over the principal value for the acquisition of NCDs, ICDs, and Term Loans did not constitute 'interest' as defined in the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these amounts.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed as Explanation 5A to the section applies, deeming the assessee to have concealed particulars of income. The voluntary declaration after being confronted with evidence does not absolve the assessee from penalty.
The Tribunal held that since the co-ordinate bench of the ITAT had already restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo assessment, the penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) at that stage did not survive and was therefore set aside. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that in the second round of assessment proceedings, pursuant to the ITAT's directions, the AO passed an order dated 23.03.2024 under section 143(3) read with section 254, accepting the total income declared by the assessee in its return of income, with no additions made. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) was not sustainable and was quashed. The impugned order was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to bring specific evidence of price rigging or a cash trail to support the additions. Relying on various High Court and ITAT precedents, the Tribunal found the additions to be based on surmises and conjectures.
The Tribunal has not yet decided the appeal. The provided text only outlines the facts and the initiation of proceedings, not the final decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not prejudicial to the revenue as the corresponding income was offered to tax by the LLP. Since both conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not met, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the reasons for the delay were sufficient and in line with Supreme Court guidelines for condonation. The Tribunal condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue pertaining to the employers' contribution u/s. 43B of the Act on the grounds that it was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that this issue was not decided against the assessee in that judgment and therefore remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the seized cash could not be adjusted against advance tax liability due to an amendment to Section 132B of the Act. Regarding self-assessment tax liability, the Tribunal noted that while it could be considered an 'existing liability', the circumstances in this case differed from prior precedents. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further verification. For regular tax demand, the Tribunal directed the adjustment of seized cash against the tax liability, noting the delay by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing evidence of the lender's identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction. The AO was not justified in treating the loan as unexplained credit, as the evidence submitted negated the observation that SDPL was a paper company.
The Tribunal held that payments made to the Government of Maharashtra are not subject to TDS provisions. It was also found that certain amounts were not paid or credited in the relevant year, and in other cases, provisions were reversed, or tax was duly deducted. The disallowance for Rs. 15,596 was partly sustained as it included a telephone bill payment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not appeared before the AO and Ld.CIT(A). However, considering the circumstances, including the COVID period, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issue raised by the assessee on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and not decided on merits. Considering the submissions and observations, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue on merits, with a proper opportunity of being heard granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to duplicate entries, unexplained loans, and non-genuine expenses, finding insufficient evidence from the AO. However, the issue of telescoping benefit was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries when doubts arose, and therefore, the addition was made on guesswork and conjectures.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It upheld the deletion of certain additions by the CIT(A) regarding unexplained expenditure and cash credits, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. However, the issue of telescoping benefit was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It upheld the deletion of certain additions by the CIT(A) regarding unexplained expenditure and cash credits, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. However, the issue of telescoping benefit was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 8,55,071 on account of late payment of Employees' Contribution towards PF and ESIC was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1. The Court held that for the employees' contribution to PF and ESI to be allowable as a deduction, it must be remitted before the due date as prescribed under the respective employee welfare legislation. The non-obstante clause in Section 43B does not absolve the employer from the obligation to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. The Tribunal further clarified that Explanation 2 to Section 36(1)(va), added by the Finance Act, 2021, was clarificatory in nature and did not have retrospective effect, meaning the legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court was applicable for the assessment year in question. Since the amount was not deposited within the time limit provided by the PF and ESIC Acts, the disallowance was justified. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It upheld the deletion of certain additions by the CIT(A) regarding unexplained expenditure and cash credits, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. However, the issue of telescoping benefit was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel argued that the documents could not be arranged in the short period provided, and the CIT(E) had passed the order due to limitation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the matter back for fresh decision, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish the required documents.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of having filed submissions (Paper Book pages 14-16) and emphasized that the CIT(A) is obligated under Section 250 to decide appeals on merit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive for the assessee to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel argued that the documents could not be arranged in the short period provided, and the CIT(E) had passed the order due to limitation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the matter back for fresh decision, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish the required documents.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's cash book as fabricated without specific defects. The Tribunal considered the nature of the business, the consistent auditing of accounts, and the lack of any other undisclosed income source, concluding that the cash deposits were likely business receipts.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It upheld the deletion of certain additions by the CIT(A) regarding unexplained expenditure and cash credits, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. However, the issue of telescoping benefit was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It upheld the deletion of certain additions by the CIT(A) regarding unexplained expenditure and cash credits, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. However, the issue of telescoping benefit was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.