Loading ITAT cases…
630 orders · Page 10 of 13
The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority as per Section 151 of the Act, rendering the notice invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing purchase bills, bank statements, DP statements, and broker notes. The AO's additions were based on conjecture and surmises from a third-party investigation report without corroborating evidence. The Tribunal also referred to various High Court and Supreme Court decisions supporting the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal found that while the appeal was dismissed ex-parte, there was no established malafide intention on the part of the assessee. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo consideration with proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the grounds that the assessee was pursuing a bona fide alternative remedy. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to update PAN and bank details contributed to the issue. However, since the explanation of cash deposits by the new firm was not examined during assessment, the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the matter to the AO for verification was justified.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The audit objection did not constitute new information as the AO had already considered the matter.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for a detailed order on merits, allowing the grounds partly. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal found that the notice issued u/s. 148 was beyond the period of limitation and therefore quashed, leading to the reassessment order being void ab initio.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 455 days, finding a reasonable cause due to the death of the assessee's CA. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the issue raised by the assessee regarding the adjustment for recovered bad debts had been addressed and rectified by a subsequent order under Section 154. To avoid any conflict, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground and set aside the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's withdrawal of the notification was illegal and that the CBDT's role was ministerial once approval was granted by the Ministry of Commerce. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's withdrawal of the notification was illegal and that the CBDT's role was ministerial once approval was granted by the Ministry of Commerce. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had already deleted the addition related to the bogus unsecured loan of Rs. 2,50,25,577/- and the interest paid thereon. A Co-ordinate Bench had also dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the approval for passing the order under Section 148A(d) and issuing notice under Section 148 was obtained from an incorrect authority, violating Section 151(ii) of the Act. This non-compliance affected the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and is ready to pay the tax. Both parties agreed that the appeal can be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the long-term capital gains (LTCG) earned by the assessee from transactions grandfathered under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA are exempt from taxation in India. Therefore, these exempt gains cannot be adjusted against the short-term and long-term capital losses (STCL/LTCL) incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2021-22 and observations from the Bombay High Court in the case of S.B. Billimoria & Co. which established that income not forming part of total income does not enter the computation of total income. Setting off losses against exempt gains would effectively tax the gains in India, violating the DTAA. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption of the entire LTCG amounting to Rs.38,48,55,851/- and also to allow the carry forward of the STCL/LTCL of Rs.3,59,84,420/- to subsequent years. An additional ground of appeal was not pressed and left open.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. Commissioner, noting that the assessee had filed relevant documents. The case was remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for a detailed order on merits, allowing the grounds partly. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal found that the notice issued u/s. 148 was beyond the period of limitation and therefore quashed, leading to the reassessment order being void ab initio.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the assessee's response to a show cause notice and dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct a proper inquiry into all the subscribers and relied heavily on the investigation wing's report without sufficient independent verification. The assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing documents like PAN and assessment details of the subscribers.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had committed a technical mistake in filing the application under the wrong sections due to an inadvertent error. Following the decisions of co-ordinate benches, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had committed a technical mistake in filing the application under the wrong sections due to an inadvertent error. Following the decisions of co-ordinate benches, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the payments made via bearer cheques, though some were encashed later, pertained to AY 2013-14 and not AY 2012-13 as alleged. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable for the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the management service fees received by the assessee do not fall within the scope and ambit of 'Royalty' as defined in Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. The Tribunal noted that the services provided, such as IT support, operational support, marketing, quality, health, safety, and environment, estimating and engineering, and administration, do not involve imparting of any know-how or information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific experience. The Tribunal also found that the payments were a reimbursement of actual costs incurred by the assessee, as certified by auditors, and therefore, could not be reckoned as payment towards 'Royalty'. The Tribunal respectfully followed its co-ordinate bench's decisions in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 and subsequent years, including AY 2021-22, which dealt with similar recurring issues and facts. Consequently, the addition of INR 12,55,12,930/- was deleted. Grounds 2-7 were allowed. As grounds 1-7 were allowed, the remaining grounds (8-12) were considered academic and dismissed as infructuous. The appeal was allowed.
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of non-prosecution, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held that it is the duty of an appellate authority to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if the appellant fails to appear, after considering the materials on record. However, it also acknowledged the assessee's fundamental duty to diligently pursue the appeal and comply with notices. Since the assessee failed to comply with notices from the CIT(A) and also did not appear before the ITAT, the Tribunal found that no substantive adjudication of the appeal could be done. Therefore, the ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are applied and the assessee is afforded a sufficient opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal imposed a token cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee for its non-compliant attitude and lack of diligence. The issue of penalty under Section 134B was not substantively decided.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified as the assessee had provided loan confirmations and bank statements, and the AO did not verify the source of funds in the lenders' hands. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the repayment of loans by account payee cheques and payment of interest had not been disproved by the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentary evidence before the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing evidence of the transaction through banking channels. It noted that the funds were invested by M/s. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Ltd. from its own collected funds, thereby establishing genuineness and creditworthiness.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits rather than dismissing it for want of prosecution, especially when the assessee claimed to have not received notices due to an address change.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's withdrawal of the notification was illegal and that the CBDT's role was ministerial once approval was granted by the Ministry of Commerce. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order under Section 154 could not be passed on a matter that required a review of the earlier order or a change of opinion. The issue of allowability of deduction under Section 80IA(12A) was not a mistake apparent from the records. The CIT(A) had already considered the issue of partial disallowance due to reallocation of head office expenses. The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had extensively discussed the issue in a similar case of Ultratech, making it clear that the issue could not be decided by invoking Section 154. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. Regarding Ground No. 4, the Tribunal followed the decision of the coordinate bench and held that the AO was not justified in invoking Section 80IA(2A) for withdrawing the claim, even on merits. The provisions of rectification under Section 154 could not have been applied. Therefore, both on legal grounds and merits, the Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's grounds. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee with respect to eligible units acquired from SCL. The Tribunal also held that Section 80IA(12A) merely neutralizes the applicability of sub-section (12) and does not disentitle successor entities from claiming deductions. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the intention of the legislature in introducing sub-section (12A) was not to deny the benefit to the successor in the scheme of amalgamation or demerger. The Tribunal also noted that the initial investment was made by Grasim, and even after amalgamation, Grasim retained entrepreneurial risk as the ultimate shareholder, fulfilling conditions for deduction. The High Courts' approval of the amalgamation scheme also explicitly conferred the right to claim deductions for the residual period.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the appellant not responding to notices. However, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF, the Tribunal held that appeals cannot be dismissed solely for non-prosecution without considering the issues. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of MPS Limited as a comparable due to functional dissimilarities and the absence of segmental data, following its own previous decision. Regarding R. Systems International Limited, the Tribunal found that quarterly audited accounts were available, allowing for extrapolation to the financial year, and directed its inclusion as a comparable, reversing the TPO's exclusion based on a different accounting year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged its onus under section 68 for share capital and premium additions, as the AO accepted the verified documents and sources of funds in remand proceedings. For understated sales, the Tribunal found the AO's method of extrapolation baseless and not justified by law.
The Tribunal condoned the 110-day delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, with the assessee given an opportunity to be heard and present submissions.
The Tribunal held that additions based on a 'dumb document' (image) without corroboration and on a third-party statement without establishing the assessee's connection or ownership are not sustainable. Presumptions under Section 132(4A)/292C cannot be invoked against the assessee for documents not prepared by them or their employees.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was to be set aside. The Tribunal observed that the entire addition was confirmed solely on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing, which alleged manipulation and circular transactions. The assessee had submitted all requisite documentary evidence, including demat statements, bank statements, sale bills, and share allotment documents, which were not challenged or discredited by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the rise in share price due to the company's plans to invest in its subsidiary and a subsequent amalgamation approved by the Bombay High Court. The assessee was also noted as a regular investor. The Tribunal noted that the proceeds were received through regular banking channels, and the transaction was routed through the BSE. No evidence was presented by the Revenue to demonstrate price manipulation by the assessee. The Tribunal also relied on decisions of a co-ordinate bench in similar cases involving the same scrip ('KDJ') and other related cases. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 for LTCG and under Section 69C for commission were deleted. The issue of unexplained commission was consequential to the denial of LTCG exemption.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the lender, and genuineness of the transactions. The loan was also transacted through banking channels.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence for the expenses even before the Tribunal. However, in the interest of natural justice, the issue was remitted back to the AO to examine the documentary evidence for administrative and selling expenses.
The Tribunal held that the impugned transaction did not constitute a transfer of property, and therefore, capital gains could not be charged. The redevelopment agreement was not executed and was eventually cancelled. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 409 days, holding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause due to medical issues. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to record specific satisfaction is a critical procedural lapse. Relying on a coordinate bench decision and High Court precedent, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument.
The Tribunal noted that the AO disallowed the deduction of Rs. 43,68,932/- under Section 40(a)(ia) based on the fact that the assessee was claiming deduction on making payment of TDS. However, the AO did not doubt the factum of TDS payment. The assessee had submitted detailed break-ups of expenses incurred in AY 2009-2010, the corresponding disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia), and the amounts of TDS deducted and paid. Supporting documents like TDS challans, audited financials, ledger accounts, and payment vouchers were also furnished. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rejected the ground without considering this material. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue of set-off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded both issues back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the submissions and documents filed before the CIT(A) and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also observed that the AO should not reject the deduction merely because TDS was paid, especially when penal interest for delayed deposit was paid and not disputed by the revenue, and the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) permits deduction in the year tax is paid. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.