Loading ITAT cases…
630 orders · Page 8 of 13
The Tribunal condoned the 799-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), deeming it not intentional or deliberate, prioritizing substantial justice. On merits, the Tribunal found that disallowance under section 143(1)(a) was not permissible for AY 2020-21, and interest income from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the assessee committed a technical mistake by mentioning the wrong section. Following the coordinate benches, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT to consider the application as if it were filed under the correct section, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contentions regarding the demise of his partner, his own disability, and lack of knowledge of tax laws, leading to difficulties in complying with audit requirements, constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that share application money received by the company is a capital receipt and not revenue receipt. Therefore, it cannot be brought to tax under Section 28(iv) as business income. The subsequent allotment of shares confirmed the capital nature of the transaction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and the CIT(A), citing a reasonable cause due to partner disputes and SEBI investigations. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed him to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order passed by the PCIT was already quashed by the Tribunal, the consequential appeal arising from the order giving effect to it does not stand. The CIT(A) had also quashed the assessment order on this basis.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were invalid because the seized documents belonged to a third party and the assessment should have been initiated under Section 153C. The Tribunal also noted a divergence between the reasons for reopening and the actual additions made.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that it was not intentional or deliberate. On merits, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the facts regarding accumulation of income and allow relief under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion and that the assessee had provided evidence of repayment of the loan through RTGS. Citing High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the loan, having been repaid and not doubted by revenue authorities, could not be added.
The Tribunal held that receipts from General Business Support Services (BSS) do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) in the hands of the assessee. Following a co-ordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10, the Tribunal found that BSS were in the nature of management support and other business support services, and the costs were allocated on a cost-to-cost basis without mark-up. The Tribunal reasoned that these payments were in the nature of reimbursement and not income chargeable to tax. Regarding receipts for access to SUN/GSAP software license charges and maintenance charges, the Tribunal held that these do not constitute royalty. Applying the definition of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, the Tribunal found that the payments were for the right to use copyrighted software, not for the use of the copyright itself. Furthermore, these receipts were on a cost-to-cost basis without any income element. The Tribunal also held that cost allocations for IT service and local project costs are not in the nature of FTS, as the services rendered did not make available any technical knowledge or skill. The addition made by the AO in these regards was found not tenable. Grounds related to interest under section 234B were considered consequential. The appeals for AY 2016-17 to AY 2020-21 were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not properly served notice by the CIT(A) on the specified e-mail address. Considering the peculiar facts, the assessee was allowed one more opportunity to contest the case at the CIT(A) stage.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition of the entire Rs. 85,88,540/- was not justified. Applying the assessee's declared net profit rate of 7.76% to the difference in gross receipts, an addition of Rs. 2,95,300/- was sustained.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits and upheld the predecessor's order without providing independent reasoning. The CIT(A)'s order was not in consonance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that receipts from Business Support Services (BSS) are not in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and are not taxable in India. This decision was based on a co-ordinate bench ruling in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10, which found that BSS are management support services and payments received without markup are reimbursements, not income. The Tribunal also held that receipts towards cost allocation for GSAP license and Go-Live application are not royalty under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA, as they do not grant the right to use copyright, only the software. Furthermore, these receipts are on a cost-to-cost basis without any income element. Similarly, GST scoping/customisation receipts were held not to be FTS, and the addition was liable to be deleted. Receipts towards IT service and local project costs were also held not to be FTS, as they are similar to BSS and the assessee does not make available any technical knowledge or skill. Interest under Section 234B was held to be consequential. The appeals for AY 2016-17 to AY 2020-21 were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that employee contributions to PF/ESI deposited after the statutory due date are not deductible under Section 36(1)(va), even if paid before the return filing due date, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. However, gratuity fund contributions paid before the return filing due date are deductible under Section 43B.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with notices. Consequently, the assessment and penalty orders were set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise all legal issues.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without proper submission from the assessee and restored the matter back to the AO for passing a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits but dismissed the appeal as not admitted. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 450 days in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and in the interest of substantial justice. As the original order was ex-parte, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) because the appellant had not filed necessary documents before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) was directed to establish the case and pass a speaking order on merits after providing an effective opportunity to the appellant.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's authorized representative had stated that the appeal was filed by mistake, as two appeals had been filed for the same assessment year and on the same issue. Consequently, the assessee's representative requested the Bench to dismiss the present appeal. In light of this submission by the assessee, the Tribunal found the appeal to be infructuous. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. No specific issue was decided on merits, as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appellant is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, following the Supreme Court decision in Maviyali Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and other coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice and the subsequent order were invalid ab initio because the escaped income (Rs. 32,78,500/-) was below the threshold limit of Rs. 50 lacs required for reopening the assessment beyond 3 years under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The tribunal held that the appellant society is entitled to the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on the interest income received from cooperative banks, following numerous decisions of coordinate benches.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, with a direction to give the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case and documents.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice and the subsequent order were invalid ab initio because the escaped income (Rs. 32,78,500/-) was below the threshold limit of Rs. 50 lacs required for reopening the assessment beyond 3 years under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal without considering the merits, especially when grounds were raised. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the death of the appellant's father and the minimal nature of the delay.
The Tribunal noted the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the assessee should be given due opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by decisions of Coordinate Benches. The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal based on these prior rulings, which found the requirement of filing Form No. 67 to be directory.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 499 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay, supported by an affidavit, and the revenue had not brought any contradictory facts on record. The Tribunal also held that the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) suffered from illegality because an effective opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order itself indicated that no submissions were made by the appellant, and there was no proof of due service of notices. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for providing an effective hearing to the assessee within 60 days. The ratio decidendi is that the right to be heard under Section 250(2)(a) is not a mere formality but a sine qua non for upholding the principle of natural justice, and non-compliance with this principle renders the order illegal. The operative direction is to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the appeal to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order and did not properly adjudicate the grounds raised by the appellant or address the case laws relied upon. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on notices sent to an incorrect email address, violating the principle of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CPC/AO violated principles of natural justice by not providing proper intimation before making adjustments u/s. 143(1)(a). The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had filed a revised tax audit report to correct a typographical error regarding GST inclusion, which was accepted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the property for valuation to the DVO as requested by the appellant. The AO is directed to refer the property for valuation and give the appellant an opportunity to present arguments before adopting the value.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 54 cannot be denied solely because the property was purchased jointly, provided no double deduction is claimed. For the deemed rental income, the Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of business use, the Assessing Officer did not correctly determine the annual letable value (ALV) based on municipal ratable value.
The Tribunal held that the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. It was observed that while the CIT(A) noted non-compliance with notices and sought adjournments, there was no definitive proof of proper service of notices on the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to be heard, as provided under section 250(2)(a) of the Act, is not a mere formality but a fundamental aspect of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee did not pursue the case on merits and failed to submit corroborative evidence was noted. However, the Tribunal found that an effective opportunity of hearing was not provided. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for granting an effective hearing to the assessee, who was directed to present its case within 60 days. The impugned order was set aside.
The assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the 'Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024' and had filed Form No. 1. Consequently, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted the trustee's explanation for non-compliance due to age and health, deeming it a bonafide reason. The matter was restored to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation regarding the trustee's health issue as a cause for non-compliance. It held that restoring the matter for fresh adjudication would serve the interest of substantial justice.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation regarding the trustee's health issue as a cause for non-compliance. It held that restoring the matter for fresh adjudication would serve the interest of substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed against a non-existent entity, rendering the reassessment void ab initio. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in International Hospital Limited, the Tribunal found that proceedings against a dissolved company cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 115BBE, levying tax at 60%, are applicable from Assessment Year 2017-18. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in holding otherwise.
The Tribunal held that once an institution has a valid registration under Section 12AA, the Assessing Officer cannot deny exemption under Section 11 by re-examining the approved objects or deeming activities as commercial. The AO exceeded his authority by denying exemption.
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 500.63 crore, representing tax adjustment for earlier years, should be reduced from the current tax. It also held that the deferred tax charge of Rs. 28.96 crore should be reduced. Consequently, an addition of Rs. 49.20 crore was directed to be made.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as an intermediary for market development services, and the transaction was supported by invoices and RTGS payments with TDS deduction. The AO's addition was based solely on investigation wing information without independent inquiry.
The Tribunal deemed it fit to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive it if the settlement under the DTVSV scheme is not finalized. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans from the mother and father, HUFs, were sufficiently substantiated with bank statements and prior year records, and thus could not be added in the current year. The salary expenses were also allowed as the assessee, being a Chartered Accountant, reasonably incurred such costs for professional assistance.