Loading ITAT cases…
604 orders · Page 8 of 13
The Tribunal found that the DVO's valuation, requested as per Section 50C(2), exceeded the stamp duty valuation. As per Section 50C(3), when the DVO's valuation is higher, the stamp duty valuation should be considered the full value of consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under section 148 were barred by limitation and therefore invalid. Consequently, the reassessment orders based on these invalid notices were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that payments made to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India, which do not accrue as income in India and are not taxable in India, do not require TDS. Inspection and testing charges are not fees for technical services, and software payments are not royalty.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) was not justified as the AO did not establish that the payments were excessive or unreasonable. The assessee provided explanations for payments towards interest, job charges, and salary. The interest paid at 15% was deemed not unreasonable in absence of a comparable benchmark.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessees, finding that the CIT(A)'s decision not to admit it was not justified, especially as the assessees attempted to substantiate that the alleged cash belonged to Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. and that the company had owned up to it. The Tribunal reasoned that the evidence was relevant for a real determination of tax liability. Consequently, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matters were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the facts and pass fresh assessment orders. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessees and to consider the deductions under Chapter VI-A in the case of Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte. The assessees were directed to furnish all necessary evidence and information to the AO. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions but remanded the cases for fresh adjudication based on the admitted evidence.
The Tribunal found that while the TPO rightly invoked the 'other method' for benchmarking 'other support services', the ad-hoc disallowance of 50% was not in accordance with the Act. The issue of benchmarking the ALP for 'other support services' was restored to the AO for fresh computation.
The Tribunal held that payments made to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India, which do not accrue as income in India and are not taxable in India, do not require TDS. Inspection and testing charges are not fees for technical services, and software payments are not royalty.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, sustaining 50% of the gold coin expenses and a portion of other expenses, while deleting the rest. The decision was based on the partial substantiation of the expenses as being for business promotion.
The Tribunal held that since the other credits were accepted as business receipts and income was estimated at 8.00%, the cash deposit during demonetization should also be treated as part of business receipts and taxed at the same rate. Therefore, separate addition for cash deposit was not warranted.
The Tribunal found that the impugned order and assessment proceedings were not legally sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the revenue had not brought any contrary evidence to contradict the assessee's submissions. Upon perusal of the bank statement (page 27 of the paper book), an entry dated 27.06.2015 indicated an amount adjusted and overdue waived off via written-off receipt no. 1111. The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding the write-off needed verification by the AO. If the claim is found correct after verification, the AO is directed to delete the addition made to the total income. The Tribunal concluded that the matter needed to be restored to the AO to verify the assessee's claim and decide the matter afresh after giving the assessee an effective hearing within 60 days. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in these terms. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the original assessment, focusing instead on the procedural infirmities and the need for verification of the write-off.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) which had directed the AO to restrict the addition on bogus purchases by bringing the GP rate on such purchases at the same rate as that shown on genuine purchases. The Tribunal noted that this issue was recurring and had been decided in favour of the assessee by coordinate benches in previous assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons like the COVID-19 pandemic and a change in residential address. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision to not admit additional evidence furnished by the assessee was not justified. The evidence was relevant to substantiating the claim that the cash belonged to Sunil Hitech Engineers. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the date of possession of the new residential premises is the relevant date for determining purchase for Section 54 exemption, not the date of agreement or registration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. For the addition under Section 56(2)(x), the matter was restored to the AO to refer to the DVO for fair market value estimation. For the addition on opening capital, the matter was also restored to the AO for granting another opportunity to the assessee to explain the source.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had already offered presumptive income at 8% of turnover despite incurring an actual loss, no further addition for bogus purchases was warranted. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable as the receipts and expenditures were already included in the assessee's income returned under the correct PAN. This would lead to double taxation, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 61B was a technical/venial breach arising from bona fide reasons without intent to evade compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FA was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded the scope of the appeal by adjudicating on the original disallowance, which was not part of the rectification order. The appeal proceedings were confined to issues arising from the rectification.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 61B was a technical/venial breach arising from bona fide reasons without intent to evade compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FA was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 61B was a technical/venial breach arising from bona fide reasons without intent to evade compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FA was unsustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the reopening of assessment as not pressed. Regarding the addition on account of bogus purchases, the Tribunal distinguished the present case from the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Kanak Impex (supra). In the present case, the supplier (Daksh Diamonds) responded to section 133(6) notices, payments were made by account payee cheques, and the assessee attended reassessment proceedings and responded to notices. The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the source of expenditure. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 7% of bogus purchases, which was based on the assessee's submission of additional gross profit margin. The Tribunal held that the reliance placed by the Revenue on Kanak Impex was misplaced. Consequently, the assessee's grounds 3 and 4, and all grounds raised by the Revenue, were dismissed. The decision for assessment year 2010-11 was applied mutatis mutandis to assessment year 2011-12.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds concerning the reopening of assessment as not pressed. Regarding the addition on account of bogus purchases, the Tribunal distinguished the present case from the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Kanak Impex (supra). The Tribunal noted that in the present case, notices under section 133(6) were responded to by the vendor, Daksha Diamonds, payments were made by account payee cheques, and all purchase details were furnished. The assessee also attended reassessment proceedings and responded to notices. Therefore, the facts were on a different footing than Kanak Impex, where the assessee did not appear and failed to prove genuineness or source of expenditure. The Tribunal found no infirmity in restricting the addition to 7% of bogus purchases, which was based on the additional gross profit margin submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was upheld, and the grounds raised by both the assessee and the Revenue were dismissed. The decision for AY 2010-11 was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2011-12. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1) was invalid as it was done without providing a mandatory opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Furthermore, the delay in filing Form 10B was considered a procedural omission that should be condoned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds challenging the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 were not pressed and were dismissed. The core issue revolved around the addition for bogus purchases. The Revenue contended for a 100% addition, citing the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Kanak Impex (supra). However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from Kanak Impex. In the present case, notices under Section 133(6) to Daksha Diamonds were responded to, payments were made by account payee cheques, and all purchase details were furnished. The assessee also attended reassessment proceedings and responded to notices. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the facts were on a different footing, and the reliance on Kanak Impex was misplaced. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 7% of the bogus purchases, which was based on the additional gross profit margin submitted by the assessee. Consequently, the assessee's grounds 3 and 4, and all grounds raised by the Revenue, were dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that where the assessee has demonstrated the genuineness of payment and furnished purchase details, and the supplier has responded to notices, the facts differ from cases where the assessee completely fails to prove genuineness and source of expenditure, thus justifying a restricted addition based on estimated profit margin rather than a full disallowance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 7% of the bogus purchases, finding that the assessee had responded to notices, made payments via account payee cheques, and attended reassessment proceedings, distinguishing the case from a contrary High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was made arbitrarily on surmises and conjectures without specific findings and contrary to earlier decisions in similar cases. The partial disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was deemed unreasonable and unjustified.
The Tribunal found that there might have been an inadvertent error in reporting the provision for leave encashment in Form 3CD. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO to verify the factual aspects and re-examine the disallowance under Section 43B.
The Tribunal, following `Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd.`, held that brought forward business loss cannot be set off against short-term capital gains computed under Section 50 of the Act. It clarified that Section 41(2) was inapplicable to the case, and such short-term capital loss/gain must be treated solely under the head "Capital Gains" as per Sections 70(2) and 71(3).
The Tribunal held that the assessee is undisputedly entitled to the credit of TDS of Rs.27,88,922/- deducted by M/s. AIX Connect Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal noted that it is the assessee's case that the corresponding income has already been offered for tax during the year under consideration, and the TDS was deposited by the deductor in a subsequent year, which falls within AY 2024-25. Therefore, the credit of TDS should be allowed in the year under consideration. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for verification of the assessee's claim and to allow credit for the impugned TDS in the relevant year in which the income has been brought to tax. The Tribunal also emphasized that the assessee should be given an adequate opportunity to submit requisite details and evidences. The issue of violation of principles of natural justice and notification no. 01/2021 was implicitly addressed by remanding the matter for proper verification and opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that for the same assessment year, an appeal had already been filed electronically and disposed of, as the matter was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The present appeal, being a duplicate filed physically, was considered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without adjudicating on the merits. The delay was approximately 90 days and did not warrant dismissal on technical grounds.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether CSR expenditure is eligible for deduction under section 80G is debatable. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., the Tribunal stated that revision proceedings cannot be initiated if the issue is debatable and the AO has taken a plausible view.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on a general modus operandi described in an investigation report without independent inquiry or specific evidence linking the assessee to manipulation. The purchase and sale of shares were through banking channels and the stock exchange, and the revenue failed to discharge its onus to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not tenable as the assessee had discharged its onus of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. It was also noted that the assessee's business fell under an exception to the FDI prohibition and that violation of RBI regulations alone cannot attract Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) towards the difference between stamp duty valuation and the actual consideration could not be sustained. The legislative intent of section 56(2)(vii)(b) is to curb unaccounted cash transactions where property is registered below stamp duty value. While the property was registered at Rs. 3.15 crores and the stamp duty value was Rs. 4.12 crores, the Tribunal noted that the Stamp Duty Authorities of Maharashtra amended the calculation method for stamp duty valuation of old buildings via a circular dated 04.11.2015. This change, particularly in not depreciating the land's per square meter value, substantially increased the stamp duty valuation by approximately 30%. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the increase in valuation was solely due to the change in calculation method, as evidenced by valuation reports and the unchanged ready reckoner value per square meter between May and December 2015. The Tribunal also considered the Form 26QB filings and seller affidavits as substantiating the agreed sale consideration. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision is based on the unique facts and circumstances and cannot be applied as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 61B was a technical/venial breach arising from bona fide reasons without intent to evade compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271FA was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing entity post-amalgamation is invalid and liable to be quashed. The revenue's contention that the assessee did not communicate amalgamation details was rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not examined the issues on merits and had not properly considered the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 17.03.2020, passed in the name of Vijaya Bank, a non-existent entity post-amalgamation with Bank of Baroda effective 01.04.2019, is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the revenue's claim of non-communication of amalgamation details to the AO cannot be entertained, especially since the assessment of erstwhile Vijaya Bank was transferred to Mumbai subsequent to the amalgamation. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Union Bank of India (erstwhile Andhra Bank) ITA No. 1857/Mum/2025, holding that the facts are identical. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed. As the assessment order was quashed on legal grounds, the grounds raised on merits by the assessee became academic. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(b) was indeed barred by limitation. Despite arguments from the Ld. DR regarding procedural delays, the Tribunal found no provision in Section 275 to justify such delays.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the twin conditions required to invoke Section 263 – that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue – were not satisfied. The Tribunal noted that the issues raised by the PCIT, concerning other comprehensive income, disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia), and sales promotion expenses, were duly examined by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT v. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. and CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd., which emphasize that inadequacy of inquiry by the AO alone is not sufficient to invoke Section 263 powers. The PCIT failed to point out any definite or specific error in the assessment order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the PCIT and restored the assessment order passed by the AO. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the leased aircraft were operated in international traffic, thus falling under Article 8 of the India-Ireland DTAA, which grants exclusive taxation rights to the country of residence. Consequently, no Permanent Establishment (PE) existed in India, and the lease rentals were not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the lease rentals are not taxable in India. On the issue of Permanent Establishment (PE), the Tribunal found that the assessee, being an Irish company with substantial economic presence in Ireland and engaged in a long-standing global leasing business predating the DTAA, had no PE in India. The DRP's finding that the PPT was inapplicable was upheld. Regarding Article 8(1), the Tribunal interpreted the India-Ireland DTAA's broader wording, which includes 'rental' of aircraft in international traffic as a distinct category from 'operation'. The Tribunal rejected the restrictive interpretation that the lessor must be an operator or that rental must be subordinate to operations. It held that since IndiGo operated international flights and the leased aircraft were deployed on at least some international sectors, the income fell within the scope of Article 8(1). The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of 'international traffic' in Article 3(1)(g) is satisfied if the aircraft is not operated solely domestically. The specific provision of Article 8(1) prevails over the general rule for business profits under Article 7. The Tribunal also set aside the AO's action of holding income chargeable as interest and the consequential levy of interest under section 234B and initiation of penalty, as the primary addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were not barred by limitation and that the DRP's directions did not exceed its jurisdiction. Crucially, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessees on the core issue of taxability of lease rentals and the existence of a PE. It held that Article 8(1) of the India-Ireland DTAA, which deals with income from the operation of aircraft in international traffic, applied to the lease rentals. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's restrictive interpretation, stating that the ordinary meaning of the treaty text should be given effect. It found that the leased aircraft were part of a fleet used on both domestic and international sectors, thus falling within the scope of Article 8(1). The Tribunal emphasized that Article 8(1) is a specific provision that prevails over the general rule for business profits under Article 7. Consequently, the lease rentals were taxable only in Ireland. The Tribunal also held that no PE existed in India. As a result, the issues relating to interest under sections 234A and 234B, and penalty under Section 270A, were rendered academic and infructuous. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(3) by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and does not apply retrospectively to income accumulated in prior years. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that issuing notices and the assessment order in the name of a deceased person, after being informed of their death and the legal heir, is a substantive illegality, not a procedural irregularity. Such an order is void ab initio and not curable under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were not barred by limitation. It found that the DRP's directions did not travel beyond its jurisdiction. The Tribunal ruled that Articles 6 and 7 of the MLI, embodying the PPT, were not applicable to deny treaty benefits in this case. Regarding the characterisation of lease rentals, the Tribunal held that they constituted business profits, not royalty. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the assessees did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. It interpreted Article 8 of the India-Ireland DTAA broadly, holding that it applies to income from aircraft operated in international traffic, irrespective of whether the lessor is an operator or the extent of domestic versus international usage. The Tribunal reasoned that the ordinary meaning of the terms in the treaty, read in context and in light of its object and purpose, supported this interpretation. The specific allocation rule in Article 8(1) prevails over the general rule for business profits under Article 7. Consequently, the lease rentals are taxable only in Ireland. The levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B, and penalty under section 270A, were rendered academic and infructuous due to the favourable decision on the primary issue. The Tribunal decided the issue of incorrect tax rate as not applicable given the above findings. The issue of income being taxed as both royalty and interest was also decided in favour of the assessee as the rentals were not royalty. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, directing deletion of the additions made and relief from consequential interest and penalties.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were not barred by limitation, as per the detailed findings in paragraphs 3 to 3.4. Regarding the DRP's jurisdiction, the Tribunal found that the directions issued were not beyond its jurisdiction, as per paragraphs 4 to 6.8. The Tribunal determined that Articles 6 and 7 of the MLI, embodying the Principal Purpose Test (PPT), did not apply to deny treaty benefits in this case, as per paragraphs 7 to 7.12. The Tribunal held that the lease rentals and supplementary lease rentals were not taxable in India, as per paragraphs 8 to 8.9. Crucially, the Tribunal held that Article 8 of the India-Ireland DTAA was applicable, and the income from lease rentals fell within the scope of Article 8(1) as income from the operation of aircraft in international traffic, thus taxable only in the state of residence (Ireland), as per paragraphs 9 to 9.10 and 43. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no Permanent Establishment (PE) existed in India, as per paragraphs 10 to 10.10 and 106. As a result, the issues relating to interest under Sections 234A and 234B, and penalty under Section 270A, were rendered academic and infructuous, as per paragraph 107. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of incorrect tax rate and double taxation as royalty and interest were not separately adjudicated, but implicitly resolved by the application of Article 8 of the DTAA. The appeals were allowed.