Loading ITAT cases…
641 orders · Page 4 of 13
The Tribunal held that the assessee has the choice to adopt a valuation method under Rule 11UA(2). The AO cannot independently alter the valuation method chosen by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that grounds 1 to 8, relating to the reopening of assessment, were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed. Regarding grounds 9 to 14, concerning the addition of long-term capital gain, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee company had contributed land to M/s. Kanha & Co. as capital. Disputes arose, leading to dissolution proceedings initiated in 2011. Arbitration was invoked, and an award was passed on September 24, 2021. However, the assessee filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Bombay High Court, by an order dated August 19, 2022, stayed the operation of the arbitration award. The Tribunal emphasized that for Section 45(4) to be applicable, there must be an actual distribution of capital assets. Since the arbitration proceedings had not attained finality and the High Court had stayed the award, there was no actual transfer or distribution of assets of the firm to the partners during the previous year. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in CIT vs Vijayalaxmi Mill Industry, Balmukund Paper vs ITO, and CIT vs Dynamic Enterprises, which held that capital gains under Section 45(4) are taxable only upon actual transfer or distribution of assets. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. The Tribunal directed the assessee to inform the jurisdictional assessing officer and offer income to tax as and when the distribution of firm assets is finalized.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly considered the grounds as infructuous since the issues had already attained finality in favor of the assessee in the appeal against the original assessment. The Revenue's appeal against the reassessment order was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the plot of land was completed in AY 2010-11, as all essential elements of a contract were fulfilled in that year. Therefore, capital gains could not be taxed in AY 2016-17.
The Tribunal held that while the AO's approach was not entirely correct, a partial disallowance was warranted. The addition was restricted to the difference in gross profit between undisputed and disputed purchases, following a High Court precedent.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to provide documentary evidence justifying the fair market value of the interest rate on loans from related parties.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the genuineness of the loan. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit was upheld, and the corresponding interest expenditure was disallowed.
The Tribunal restored the issues of bad debts, operator expenses, and motor car/telephone expenses to the AO for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal noted that while some evidence was produced, it was not sufficiently examined by the AO or CIT(A), and granted the assessee an opportunity to furnish complete details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding bonafide in the assessee's request. The Tribunal noted that the property purchase consideration of Rs. 63,30,500/- and a cash deposit of Rs. 5,15,000/- were added to the income of the assessees under Sections 69 and 69A, respectively, due to non-appearance and lack of submissions before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessees were prevented from presenting their case due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically the prolonged illness and demise of Late Shri Kishor Hiru Pawar. Both parties agreed that restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication would serve the interest of substantial justice. The Tribunal allowed the assessees to furnish necessary submissions and evidence before the AO to substantiate their case on merits. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made under Sections 69 and 69A but remanded the matter for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to provide documentary evidence justifying the fair market value of the interest rate on loans from related parties.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2018, introducing a 5% tolerance band for the difference between stamp duty value and sale consideration, is curative and retrospective. Therefore, the marginal variation cannot be added.
The Tribunal condoned the 132-day delay in filing Form 10AB, acknowledging 'sufficient cause' and emphasizing a liberal approach to procedural delays, especially when they are mere technicalities and not deliberate. It directed the ld. CIT(E) to deem the application as filed on time and to decide its merits in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is upheld, reversing the CIT(A)'s finding. The appeals of the Revenue were allowed partly, while the assessee's application under Rule 27 was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since 50% of the difference was already added in the hands of the co-owner and accepted by them, the addition in the hands of the assessee should be restricted to the remaining 50%.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under section 263 was invalid because the original assessment order had already been rectified under section 154, thus losing its original identity and making a revision under section 263 impermissible without an actual error remaining in the rectified order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is upheld, reversing the CIT(A)'s finding. The appeals of the Revenue were allowed partly, while the assessee's application under Rule 27 was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in passing the order under Section 263 without issuing a show cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which violates the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate. Furthermore, the order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide any evidence that the appellant took the alleged loan. The appellant had submitted an affidavit and bank statements to prove the loan was not taken, discharging their onus of proof. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not justified.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and found the LTCG claim to be genuine. It distinguished the case from typical 'penny stock' manipulations due to the appellant's long holding period of over two decades and consistent receipt of dividends, concluding that the price manipulation could not be attributed to the appellant.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by establishing the identity of the creditors, proving the genuineness of the transactions through banking channels, and demonstrating creditworthiness through financial statements. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had brought nothing on record to contradict these documents, and mere suspicion could not substitute evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹90,00,000/- (and by extension, the entire addition of ₹8,43,50,000/-). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoned approach in scrutinizing bank statements, confirmations, and ITRs of lenders, verifying repayments, and ensuring the three classic tests under section 68 were satisfied. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's grievance regarding the admission of additional evidence, stating that the bulk of the evidence was already before the AO and what was additionally placed was for corroboration. The consequential disallowance of interest of ₹29,95,111/-, being incidental to the disbelieved loans, was also rightly deleted. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's conclusions rested on suspicion and partial acceptance of transactions, which was legally untenable.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, directing the AO to delete additions related to reinsurance and retrocession premiums and support services, as the facts were similar to prior favorable rulings. The issue of TDS credit was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's CA faced severe health problems and could not attend the CIT(A) proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal granted the appellant one more opportunity to present evidence and explanations before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on product advertisement, marketing, and brand promotion is revenue in nature and allowable as a deduction. It disagreed with the lower authorities' finding that the expenditure was capital in nature.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was a Specified Domestic Transaction and the Arm's Length Price (ALP) should be determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). Since the TPO had already determined the ALP to be at arm's length, no adjustment was required.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was not obtained from the competent authority as required by law, making the reopening proceedings invalid. Additionally, the notice under section 148 was found to be issued beyond the limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising powers under Section 263. It found that there is no bar under Section 80G for claiming deduction on donations made towards CSR expenses to an entity with a valid Section 80G approval. The AO's decision was found to be correct, and the issue was considered debatable but settled by coordinate benches.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2020-21, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on uncorroborated WhatsApp chats. For AY 2021-22, the Tribunal remanded the issue of land valuation to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that once a moratorium under Section 14 of IBC is in force, no proceedings against the corporate debtor can continue. Citing a similar precedent, the ITAT set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders and remanded both appeals back to the CIT(A) with directions to decide them only after the moratorium period concludes.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2020-21, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on uncorroborated WhatsApp chats. For AY 2021-22, the Tribunal remanded the issue of land valuation to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently claimed part payments were made via banking channels in 2006, a fact not verified by lower authorities. Following precedents, it reiterated that the stamp duty value on the agreement date should be considered if part consideration was paid via account payee cheque, bank draft, or electronic mode. The matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional AO to verify these facts and grant relief.
The Tribunal held that once a moratorium under Section 14 of IBC is in force, no proceedings against the corporate debtor can continue. Citing a similar precedent, the ITAT set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s orders and remanded both appeals back to the CIT(A) with directions to decide them only after the moratorium period concludes.
The Tribunal held that while Section 50 deems gains from depreciable assets as STCG for computation, it does not convert a long-term capital asset into a short-term one for tax rate purposes. The tax rate applicable under Section 112 for LTCG should be applied.
The Tribunal accepted the appellant's offer to pay a tax of Rs. 25,000/- on their turnover, considering the small-scale nature of their business and the fact that they were engaged in the sale of mobile articles. The Tribunal directed the appellant to pay this amount and arrive at the taxable income.
The ITAT observed prima facie evidence suggesting that the appellant had made certain submissions to the CIT(A) that were not considered in the impugned order. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to take all submissions into consideration and pass a fresh order after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the utilization of accumulated funds in the 6th year was debatable, and therefore, an adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) could not be made. Relying on Bombay High Court and ITAT decisions, it found that the denial of benefit/exemption for 6th-year utilization was not permissible, and the amendment to the accumulation period could not be applied retrospectively. Consequently, the addition made by CPC was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the evidence was filed by way of written submissions before the CIT(A), the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to consider all filed details and pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity to the appellant.
The Tribunal noted that similar cases involving group companies of the tax auditor were remanded to the CIT(A). Following this precedent, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide all grounds of appeal after providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's father was unwell, causing non-compliance. Considering this, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the appellant before the CITA and remitted the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other circumstances. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to hospitalization and provided documentary evidence. Therefore, the penalty levied was not fit.
The Tribunal held that the additions were made without incriminating material or corroborative evidence, relying solely on a retracted police statement. Following previous coordinate bench decisions and the Apex Court ruling in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that a mere unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially when the assessee suo motu brought the mistake to the AO's notice and offered it for disallowance. The penalty was deemed uncalled for.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's determination of ALP, using data for Systango Technology Ltd. without sufficient detail on its functional comparability, was flawed. The matter was restored to the TPO for re-evaluation, with directions to consider Systango Technology Ltd. as a comparable only after proper analysis and to provide the assessee with an opportunity for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the amounts involved in the penalty orders were below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024. Therefore, the appeals deserved to be dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to verify the nature of the transactions, acknowledging that the earlier proceedings were ex-parte and potentially without full hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to sufficient cause. However, due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to furnish documents before the lower authorities, the appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo assessment. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for their recalcitrant attitude.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a fresh application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and sought to withdraw the current appeal without prejudice to its rights. As the Departmental Representative had no objection, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the deduction for principal recovery in finance lease transactions is a necessary corollary to the surrendered depreciation. It clarified that *Goetze (India) Ltd.* limits the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for fresh claims but does not curtail the appellate authorities' power to determine the correct taxable income, especially when the claim is intrinsically linked to the accepted treatment of finance leases.
The Tribunal found that the DRP's order was unclear and seemed to have mixed up facts, not properly examining the core issues. The Tribunal restored the matter to the DRP for a proper examination of all issues raised by the assessee and to issue fresh directions.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty order and demand notice were issued irregularly, with the demand notice predating the penalty order and signed by a different officer. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's request for time to file fresh submissions before the CIT(A).