Loading ITAT cases…
667 orders · Page 3 of 14
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024' and had filed the necessary application. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case. The order of the Ld.CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the appellant bank to withdraw all its appeals after it decided to avail the benefit of the 'Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas scheme 2024'. The learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's application filed under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme had been accepted, and Form 2 was issued by the designated authority on 27.12.202. The assessee had also paid the due tax of Rs.4,18,480/- pursuant to the acceptance of the application. In light of these developments, the Learned Authorized Representative (AR) requested permission to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal, in view of the above facts, dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the grounds of appeal as the appeal was withdrawn due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the question of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) arises only in cases of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this case, the income declared by the assessee was accepted by the CPC, and the additional tax liability arose solely due to a change in the tax rates applicable to an individual versus an AOP. Therefore, the penalty provisions were not invokable.
The Tribunal held that the intimation order under Section 143(1) became inoperative and infructuous due to the subsequent scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). The issue of limiting the deduction was left to be decided in the appeal pending against the Section 143(3) order.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C could not be initiated as there was no incriminating material or information found pertaining to the assessment years in question that had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. The additions made were not linked to the satisfaction note or any incriminating documents.
The Tribunal observed that lower authorities had not verified crucial facts, including the specific bank account where the interest was credited and whether the assessee actually received the income given the Custodian's control over his assets. Citing the lack of complete documentary evidence and verification, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to furnish all relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that once capital gains are considered exempt under the DTAA, there is no occasion to adjust brought forward capital losses against such exempt gains. The assessable income must be computed as per the IT Act, with DTAA benefits applied to net taxable income.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication, as the assessee's appeal on the same issue had also been remitted. The Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the 'reason to believe' for reopening was based on presumptions and lacked a rational connection or live link to actual income escapement. The difference in 'stock in progress' value was attributable to other duly accounted expenses like stamp duty and registration. Citing ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das, the Tribunal held the reopening was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the question of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) arises only in cases of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In this case, the income declared by the assessee was accepted by the CPC, and the additional tax liability arose solely due to a change in the tax rates applicable to an individual versus an AOP. Therefore, the penalty provisions were not invokable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had since amended its MOA to comply with Section 11 and had not spent funds outside India. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal permitted the appellant bank to withdraw all its appeals after it decided to avail the benefit of the 'Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas scheme 2024'. The learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the AO has limited power to adjust book profit under Section 115JB and cannot tinker with the profit and loss account approved by the Board of Directors, except as provided in the explanations. The addition made by the AO in the Section 154 proceedings was beyond the scope of the section and Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not properly verified the documents submitted by the assessee regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the shareholders. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable for disallowance if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the deletion of the disallowance by the CIT(A) was upheld.
For ITA No. 4188/Mum/2023, the appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09 OF 2024. For ITA Nos. 4189 & 4091/Mum/2023, the appeals were dismissed as the appellant intended to avail DTVSV, rendering the appeals infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the AO has limited power to adjust book profit under Section 115JB and cannot tinker with the profit and loss account approved by the Board of Directors, except as provided in the explanations. The addition made by the AO in the Section 154 proceedings was beyond the scope of the section and Section 115JB.
The Tribunal permitted the appellant bank to withdraw all its appeals after it decided to avail the benefit of the 'Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas scheme 2024'. The learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) was in accordance with the provisions of Section 153C and was justified. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that since there was no incriminating document, information, or material pertaining to the assessment years under consideration, the action under Section 153C could not have been taken. Furthermore, none of the additions made by the AO emanated from the satisfaction note or any incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that any incriminating material or information found had already been added and taxed in the assessment order passed for AY 2020-21. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in M/s Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Index Securities & Research Pvt. Ltd., CIT-7 v. RRJ Securities, and ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. ACIT, which establish that seized documents must be incriminating and relate to the assessment years sought to be reopened for the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the AO lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C for the assessment years under consideration. All appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had since amended its MOA to comply with Section 11 and had not spent funds outside India. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C as the seized material did not pertain to the assessment years in question. The additions made were not based on any incriminating material related to the satisfaction note.
The Tribunal held that an order passed under section 143(1) does not automatically merge with an assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The issue of delayed payment of PF and ESIC was not part of the scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3) and was not discussed by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to rectify the error. The Tribunal observed that the trust had already been granted registration under Section 12A and was providing valuable services. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) to consider the application afresh.
The Tribunal held that capital gains exempt under the India-Mauritius DTAA cannot be included in the total income for computation. Therefore, losses from other transactions cannot be set off against such exempt gains. The assessee is entitled to carry forward the full LTCL.
The Tribunal allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal, as there was no objection from the DR. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024' and had filed the necessary application. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the appellant bank to withdraw all its appeals after it decided to avail the benefit of the 'Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas scheme 2024'. The learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO. If Apollo Tyres Ltd. corrects the TDS returns as claimed by the assessee and there is a reduction in receipts after reconciliation, the AO is directed to grant proportionate TDS credit.
The Tribunal, in its decision, addressed the grounds raised by the Revenue. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal noted the arguments concerning CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2022. The Tribunal's specific finding on this issue is not fully detailed in the provided text, but it appears to be a point of contention. On the issue of additional depreciation, the Tribunal referred to the case of Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the Karnataka High Court's decision, which dealt with a similar situation of claiming balance additional depreciation in a subsequent year. The judgment suggests that the assessee was an existing industrial undertaking that acquired new plant and machinery. The Tribunal's ruling on whether additional depreciation can be carried forward is implied to be in favour of the assessee, based on the cited precedent. For the expenditure on COS and DMF, the Tribunal considered the nature of the benefit and the ratio in M/s Goetze India Ltd. and Ballimal Navi Kishore Vs CIT. The Tribunal's finding on whether these are revenue or capital expenditures is not explicitly stated, but the Revenue's grounds suggest the CIT(A) treated them as revenue. The treatment of export incentives (SHIS, FMS, FPS) as capital receipts was also examined, with the Revenue arguing against their admission at the appellate stage and citing M/s Goetze India Ltd. The Tribunal's final decision on these incentives, and the impact of the Finance Act, 2015 amendment, is not fully elaborated in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that once capital gains are considered exempt under the DTAA, there is no occasion to adjust brought forward capital losses against such exempt gains. The assessable income must be computed as per the IT Act, with DTAA benefits applied to net taxable income.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C as the seized material did not pertain to the assessment years in question. The additions made were not based on any incriminating material related to the satisfaction note.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to rectify the error. The Tribunal observed that the trust had already been granted registration under Section 12A and was providing valuable services. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) to consider the application afresh.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition based on purchase value under Section 68 was illogical as it applies only to credit entries. The assessee was a regular trader, and the losses incurred were in the regular course of business and eligible for set-off.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 542 days in filing the appeal due to genuine hardships. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the settlement scheme application does not materialize.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law due to the AO lacking pecuniary jurisdiction and failing to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the case was transferred. The transfer of jurisdiction was also done without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider all documents and contentions of the assessee, allowing the assessee an opportunity for further submissions and hearing. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the Revenue's appeal might fall under the low tax effect criteria due to the limited grievance of 1% of the corporate guarantee commission. The Tribunal also observed that certain expenses were erroneously included by the TPO.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings was considered to have started from the Assessing Officer's reference, and the subsequent penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a contractor executing a project for LMRCL and did not qualify for deduction under Section 80IA as it was not developing or operating an infrastructural facility. However, the Tribunal found that the fees paid for technical services were for business purposes and eligible for deduction under Section 37.
The Tribunal held that the subsidies received under the SHIS, FMS, and FPS schemes are to be treated as capital receipts. This decision was based on the purpose of these schemes, which was to encourage industrial growth, technological upgradation, and expansion of employment opportunities, aligning with the 'purpose test' laid down by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that the Rajasthan High Court in PCIT vs. Nitin Spinners Ltd. also treated FMS subsidy as a capital receipt, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's SLP against that decision. Therefore, the grounds related to treating these subsidies as capital receipts were dismissed. Regarding the allowance of deduction in computing book profit under Section 115JB for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that depreciation allowable under the Act, even if not debited to the P&L account but adjusted against general reserves, must be taken into account for computing book profits under Section 115JB. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on this issue. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that export incentives (FMS, FPS, SHIS) are capital receipts and not taxable, following Supreme Court decisions. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing depreciation adjustment for book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal noted the proof of tax payment under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and the settlement order. Consequently, the appellant's cross-objection was dismissed, and the Department's appeal was rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings was considered to have started from the Assessing Officer's reference, and the subsequent penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limits.
The Tribunal heard both parties and per the appellant's request, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The appellant provided proof of availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal held that income of an APMC is exempt under Section 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the prior registration u/s 12A or benefit u/s 11 had no relevance, and the assessee's income was not taxable.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of commission paid to RBI/NPCI, citing CBDT notification exempting such payments from TDS. Additions related to 'Surety Ship Guarantee Fund' and deferred tax entry were also deleted, following previous tribunal decisions and accounting principles. The loss on sale of fixed assets was restricted to the admitted amount.
The Tribunal held that income of an APMC is exempt under Section 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the prior registration u/s 12A or benefit u/s 11 had no relevance, and the assessee's income was not taxable.