Loading ITAT cases…
583 orders · Page 9 of 12
The Tribunal restored the issue of Rs. 26,500/- related to stamp duty payment to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing an opportunity to the assessee. For the Rs. 30,95,00,000/- fixed deposit issue, the matter was also restored to the AO for examining the genuineness of loans taken from Nisiddh Vision Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that for disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. Strategic investments in subsidiaries that do not yield exempt income cannot be included for such disallowance, citing the precedent set by ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. The AO was directed to delete the enhanced disallowance.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee discharged the primary onus by furnishing identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, the onus shifts to the Revenue. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found that the AO was not justified in making the addition under Section 68 without further investigation or adverse evidence.
The Tribunal held that if no addition is made on the grounds for which reassessment was initiated, the AO cannot make additions on other unrelated issues. The reassessment order was quashed as it was bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the additions made in the quantum assessment proceedings were on an estimation basis, as the disallowance of 100% of the purchases was restricted to 12.5% by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the ITAT. The Tribunal noted that it is well-settled that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where additions are made on an estimated basis. The Tribunal relied on decisions of various ITATs and High Courts, including its own coordinate benches in Elcon Pipe and Fittings Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Mun Gems vs. ACIT, and Yogendra Raj U Sanghvi, which held that no penalty is leviable on estimated additions. Specifically, the ITAT Mumbai in Mun Gems held that an ad hoc GP rate applied on alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of gross profit could not be the basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Since the facts were similar, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the penalty. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the addition of Rs. 51,46,215/- towards interest on a lease loan from qualifying assets to the AE (M/s Essar Shipping DMCC) should be remanded. The assessee argued that TP regulations do not apply to tonnage tax scheme operations. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 was decided in its favour, the revenue was in appeal before the High Court. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that income under the tonnage tax scheme is computed on the weight of the vessel and not on receipts or expenses, and that TP provisions might not be applicable. However, it also acknowledged the DRP's view that the issue needed to be kept alive due to the pending High Court appeal. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration, keeping in view the Tonnage Tax Scheme provisions and the outcome of the High Court appeal. Regarding the Corporate Guarantee Commission of Rs. 3,95,78,000/-, the Tribunal held that the Arm's Length Price (ALP) must be determined by adopting one of the prescribed methods and not on an ad-hoc basis. It remanded this issue back to the TPO/AO for determination of the ALP in accordance with the Act, using the most appropriate method. For the interest income from income tax refund of Rs. 1 crore, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. It reasoned that while interest on bank fixed deposits maintained as margin money for business exigencies was treated as business income, interest received from the Revenue on a refund of excess tax paid is paid for the delay caused by the Revenue and is correctly treated as 'Income from other sources' under Section 244A of the Act, not business income. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. On the primary issue concerning the addition under Section 56(2)(x), the Tribunal found that the assessee had successfully demonstrated making part payments of the consideration through banking channels on the date of agreement (or close to it). Specifically, Rs. 1,51,421/- was paid on 05.04.2010 (cleared on 19.04.2010) and Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid on 04.03.2011. The remaining consideration for the assessee's share was paid just before the registration in June 2017. The Tribunal held that Rs. 4,51,421/- was paid in financial year 2010-11, which established that part payment of consideration was made on the date of agreement. Consequently, the assessee was eligible for the benefit of the first and second provisos to Section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal noted that since the primary submission was accepted, the alternative submissions regarding the applicability of Section 56(2)(x) from 01.04.2017 became academic. The grounds of appeal related to penalty and interest were not explicitly decided as the primary issue was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the business expenditure claim and did not provide cogent evidence for cash credits. The lack of substantiation meant the assessee failed to discharge the onus placed upon them.
The Tribunal, while noting the prior dismissals, granted the assessee one last opportunity to prove the 2008 sale agreements by submitting bank statements and allotment letters/sale agreements. The AO is directed to reconsider the case after these documents are produced.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. Since the additions in this case were on estimation, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's inability to represent their case before the lower authorities was due to reasonable cause arising from personal circumstances and incorrect communication of notices. Therefore, the case should be verified denovo by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation, as per the concessions made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the context of Section 149 and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was vitiated by a breach of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the individuals whose statements were relied upon by the revenue. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not referring the valuation of the residential flats to the DVO. The Tribunal noted that the stamp duty value adopted by the stamp duty authority exceeded the value of the flats purchased by the assessee on the date of transfer, and this value was not disputed in any appeal, revision, or reference. Therefore, both conditions of section 50C(2) of the Act were fulfilled, which allows the AO to refer the valuation to a Valuation Officer when the assessee claims the stamp duty value exceeds the fair market value. The Tribunal found that the impugned order of the CIT(A) also suffered from the same vice as it failed to refer the matter to the DVO despite the assessee's submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication after seeking a valuation report from the DVO. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and allow the grounds raised by the assessee for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were not legally sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case, and the CIT(E) had passed ex-parte orders. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(E). The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(E) within 90 days of the order. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the applications for registration and approval but remanded the matter for a fresh decision after the assessee presents its case. The issue regarding filing updated returns was implicitly addressed by remanding the matter, as a fresh adjudication by the CIT(E) would allow for proper consideration of the assessee's revised tax position.
The Tribunal held that the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were ex-parte and not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the assessee had not been given a proper and effective opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the applications for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) on the grounds that the assessee failed to furnish details called for, despite issuing notices through e-portal and email. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of not receiving adequate notice, particularly physical copies, and facing technological challenges was plausible. The Tribunal concluded that the ends of justice would be met by granting the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to present its case within 90 days of the order. The issue of filing updated returns was not explicitly decided but was implicitly addressed by restoring the original applications.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice u/s 148 was invalid because it was issued beyond the prescribed three-year period under the amended law, as the escaped income did not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/-. Consequently, the assessment order passed u/s 147 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that income generated from members of a co-operative housing society, collected for providing services and amenities, falls under the principle of mutuality and is not taxable, provided no business activity with non-members is conducted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue of deduction u/s 80G in detail during the assessment proceedings, and after considering the assessee's reply, decided not to make any disallowance. Therefore, the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a deposit, citing the assessee's bonafide belief and lack of expertise. The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) based on various precedents, holding that interest income from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a deposit, citing the assessee's bonafide belief and lack of expertise. The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) based on various precedents, holding that interest income from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had thoroughly examined the facts and passed a reasoned order. The purchase of shares was from disclosed sources, and the transactions, though involving a loss, did not indicate an intention to evade tax. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had made the required payment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee from rendering management support services is not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA. The Tribunal relied on its coordinate bench's decisions in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The reasoning was that the 'make available' clause in the treaty requires the technical knowledge and skill to remain with the recipient even after the contract ends, enabling them to deploy similar technology without dependence on the provider. The Tribunal found that this condition was not satisfied, and the revenue had not made out a case for transfer of technology or skills. The Tribunal noted that the DRP had rejected the assessee's objections to keep the issue alive for the revenue, despite prior favorable rulings. Consequently, the addition of INR 15,59,23,979 was deleted. Ground No. 2 was allowed. Regarding Ground No. 3, as relief was granted on Ground No. 2 and the assessee did not wish to press it, it was dismissed as infructuous. Ground No. 4 was held to be consequential and needing no separate adjudication. Ground No. 5, concerning penalty proceedings, was dismissed as premature. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been filed before the Bengaluru benches as the assessment order originated from there. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal, and the Tribunal dismissed it as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to both parties to approach the Tribunal for restoration if the DVSV-2024 settlement fails.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had committed a technical mistake by applying under the wrong section due to an inadvertent error. Following co-ordinate bench decisions, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge or limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied, both during the initiation of penalty proceedings and in the penalty order. This statutory requirement was not fulfilled.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge or limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied, both during the initiation of penalty proceedings and in the penalty order. This statutory requirement was not fulfilled.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge or limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was levied, both during the initiation of penalty proceedings and in the penalty order. This statutory requirement was not fulfilled.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned on deposits with co-operative banks. The disallowance made by the authorities below was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly restricted the addition for understated sales to Rs. 8,28,808/-. The addition for share application money was not justified as it was a transfer to a loan account due to cancelled share allotment. For listing fees, the Tribunal found that a portion of the expenses was unverified, and directed a disallowance of 25% of the unverified amount.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter to the Learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation regarding the delay and the issues faced with their tax consultant. It was observed that the rejection orders were passed without further opportunity, possibly due to statutory time limitations for the CIT(E) to pass an order. The Tribunal directed the assessee to make necessary compliance before the CIT(E). The finding on the delay in filing appeals and the sufficiency of cause for non-compliance was implicitly accepted by remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that where a genuine procedural lapse occurs due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, and the assessee demonstrates a willingness to comply, the matter can be remanded for fresh consideration to ensure justice.
The Tribunal condoned the assessee's mistake, acknowledging it as an unintentional typographic error that would cause prejudice. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the assessee's application and claim on merits.
The tribunal found that two of the three appeals filed by the assessee were duplicate. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the two duplicate appeals (ITA No.524/Mum/2025 and ITA No.626/Mum/2025).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's bank account was misused by the employer and that the addition should not have been made in the assessee's hands. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause due to the trustee's illness and hospitalization. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted proof of charitable activity, financial statements, and bank statements. However, the registration was rejected by the CIT(E) solely for the want of details of expenditure. The assessee argued that these details were reflected in the financial statements and that a sufficient opportunity to furnish evidence of expenditure was not provided. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is to examine the details of expenditure submitted by the assessee and provide the assessee with a due opportunity of being heard before deciding the application for registration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that income generated from members of a co-operative housing society, collected for providing services and amenities, falls under the principle of mutuality and is not taxable, provided no business activity with non-members is conducted.
The tribunal held that the assessee had provided necessary documents like confirmations, ITRs, and financial statements to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO did not conduct independent inquiries to negate the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, requirement. A procedural lapse in filing the form should not deprive the assessee of a genuine FTC claim, especially when the mistake was rectified.
The Tribunal held that the actual bad debts written off should be allowed as a deduction. However, the provision for bad and doubtful debts, when the assessee has a loss, is not allowable under Section 36(1)(viia). The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh assessment order accordingly.
The tribunal found that two of the three appeals filed by the assessee were duplicate. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the two duplicate appeals (ITA No.524/Mum/2025 and ITA No.626/Mum/2025).
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention. It noted that the Walkeshwar Om Vikas Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. certified that Flats No. 501-B & 601-B are internally connected with an internal staircase, forming a duplex flat. The erstwhile owner had purchased the property as a duplex vide an agreement dated October 17, 1989. These facts were available to the AO, who, however, misconstrued the property as two different flats. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Raman Kumar Suri, which held that purchasing two flats that were already joined and converted into one duplex flat before acquisition constitutes the purchase of one residential house. The Tribunal also cited co-ordinate bench decisions in Bhaskar Prataprai Shah and Nakul Aggarwal, which followed the Bombay High Court's ruling. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and directed the AO to allow the exemption under Section 54F of the Act. The issue of whether the property constituted one residential unit for Section 54F purposes was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the additional grounds raised by the Assessee, concerning the validity of revision proceedings and the scope of Section 143(1), were legal and could be adjudicated. Regarding the core issue, the Tribunal directed that the Assessing Officer (AO) should pass a fresh assessment order. The scope of inquiry in the set-aside proceedings was restricted to the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act. If the Assessee could establish that INR 1,05,71,051 represented actual bad debts written off, no disallowance would be made for that amount. Grounds 1, 2, and 4 were dismissed, while Grounds 5, 6, and 7 were partly allowed. The Tribunal also set aside the assessment order dated 31/03/2024 and the CIT(A)'s order dated 27/05/2024, deeming the appeals partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the fabrication charges received by the assessee are not taxable in India as FTS. It followed its own previous decisions for preceding assessment years where similar issues were decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as a cooperative bank is a species of cooperative society. Similarly, interest on deposits with nationalized banks, when incidental to the business of providing credit, is deductible under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that notional rent on unsold flats held as stock-in-trade is taxable as 'Income from house property' even before the insertion of Section 23(5) of the Act. However, the determination of the annual letting value (ALV) for this notional rent needs to be in accordance with municipal laws and principles laid down by the jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee and violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting the application in a hurried manner. The rejection was considered not legally sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer (AO) nor the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had provided adequate opportunity to the assessee to reconcile the figures. It was observed that the AO and CIT(A) might have drawn adverse conclusions based on incomplete details submitted by the assessee. Conversely, the assessee admittedly did not submit complete replies and supporting evidence, including GST records, during the appellate proceedings. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to examine all material facts and evidence, including GSTR-2B and other relevant documents, to arrive at a just and fair conclusion. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue primarily involved reconciliation of facts and figures and, following principles of justice and fair play, directed the CIT(A) to grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the matter in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided, but the entire matter was sent back for fresh adjudication.