Loading ITAT cases…
594 orders · Page 5 of 12
The Tribunal held that income derived from transportation of passengers under code-sharing arrangements falls within the scope of 'operation of aircrafts' as defined in Article 8(2) of the India-US DTAA. Consequently, such income is exempt from taxation in India.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by partly allowing them. Regarding the additional ground concerning the notice under Section 143(2), it was not admitted as no request was made under Rule 11 of ITAT Rules and no submissions were made. For the issue of reopening under Section 148, the CIT(A) had found sufficient materials and relied on precedents, which the Tribunal did not disturb. Concerning the derivative losses, the Tribunal noted that for AY 2014-15, the assessee did not furnish details of scrips traded and the loss was incurred on the same day trade reversal, upholding the addition. For AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the decision in AY 2014-15 was applied mutatis mutandis. For the additions under Section 68 concerning alleged accommodation loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed necessary documents to prove identity, creditworthiness, and bank statements before the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that while the initial burden is on the assessee to explain the nature and source, the AO must scrutinize and probe further if doubts arise. Crucially, the Tribunal restored the issue of loans from Sri Sharad Darak's controlled companies to the AO with a direction to facilitate cross-examination of Sri Sharad Darak and any other person whose statements led to adverse inferences. The Tribunal rejected the argument that genuine transactions with the same lender and third parties by co-ordinate benches absolved the assessee of its statutory obligation under Section 68. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO. The additional area acquired under the development agreement for a consideration was considered part of the investment eligible for deduction under Section 54. The AO's arbitrary fixation of market rate was also found to be infirm.
The Tribunal held that income derived from transportation of passengers under code-sharing arrangements falls within the scope of 'operation of aircrafts' as defined in Article 8(2) of the India-US DTAA. Consequently, such income is exempt from taxation in India.
The Tribunal held that income derived from transportation of passengers under code-sharing arrangements falls within the scope of 'operation of aircrafts' as defined in Article 8(2) of the India-US DTAA. Consequently, such income is exempt from taxation in India.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were void ab initio due to fundamental jurisdictional defects, specifically the contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under Section 151A. The Tribunal found that the AO lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice. On merits, the Tribunal concluded that the seized excel sheets lacked probative value, and the supporting statements recorded under Section 132(4) had been retracted. Consequently, both substantive and protective additions were unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had mechanically transposed entries from one year to another without verifying temporal correlation, which is impermissible telescoping of facts, citing CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment orders and deleted all additions. Ancillary determinations like interest levies were rendered infructuous. The ratio is that reassessments initiated in contravention of mandatory procedural schemes like the Faceless Assessment Scheme are void, and additions based on retracted statements and unverified documents lack evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable based on previous decisions. It also directed a reconsideration of the computation of notional rent on unsold inventory, considering specific directions regarding prospective application of amendments and municipal ratable value.
The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which is a fundamental requirement (sine qua non). Concluding that this resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to present its case within sixty days.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that the seller had assured to file the return and declare the transaction. However, the Tribunal noted that no documentary evidence was furnished to demonstrate that the conditions laid down in the first proviso to Section 201(1) were satisfied. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for considering the assessee's claim as per the relevant provisions. The AO was directed to allow the claim after due verification of the prescribed conditions. The assessee was also directed to submit the requisite documentary evidence before the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The specific findings on the rate of interest or whether proceedings under Section 201(1A) were wrongly initiated were not definitively decided but were to be re-examined by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 503 days, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the PMNRF, considering the assessee's genuine reasons and the impact of COVID-19. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment to provide the assessee with due opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the seized Excel sheets lacked probative value and the retracted statements supporting them were unreliable. The reassessment proceedings were also found to suffer from jurisdictional and procedural defects.
The Tribunal held that the seized Excel sheets lacked probative value and the retracted statements supporting them were unreliable. The reassessment proceedings were also found to suffer from jurisdictional and procedural defects.
The Tribunal held that the failure of the revenue to provide the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed as void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide specific discrepancies in the assessee's books. It noted that the cash sales were a consistent feature of the assessee's business over the years and that the deposits were supported by recorded sales and audited accounts. The Tribunal also found that sustaining the addition by applying an artificial gross profit rate was unjustified and would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made based on estimation or presumption without direct evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars. Since the penalty was based on estimated GP addition and proportionate interest disallowance without such evidence, it was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the AO erred in adding the gross toll income without considering the estimated expenses for maintenance and improvement. Therefore, the additions related to toll income were deleted. The legal issue of reopening was rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the PCIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was beyond his jurisdiction.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence regarding the sundry creditors. Given this procedural lapse, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after properly considering the additional evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing exemptions under sections 54F and 54EC and treating the entire gain as Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee's ground regarding indexation from 1981 was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the existence of an object allowing application of funds outside India does not automatically lead to denial of registration. It also directed the CIT(E) to consider the application on merits, taking into account the legislative intent to condone delays.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submissions regarding the timing of the transactions were not considered by the AO. The Tribunal also observed that a similar transaction was examined in AY 2017-18, where it was concluded that the sale occurred in AY 2018-19. The Tribunal found prima facie merit in the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the PCIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was beyond his jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the PCIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was beyond his jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on conjectures and surmises rather than concrete evidence. The WhatsApp chat lacked authenticity and did not specifically mention the assessee or the impugned property transaction, and no corroborative evidence was found during the searches.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities made the addition merely based on statements from third parties without examining the documentary evidence and details furnished by the assessee. The AO did not reject the books of accounts or the sales declared by the assessee, and the source of credit was from sales declared in the books, which was not disputed by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that sales tax incentives granted for developing backward areas are capital receipts. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute disallowances under Section 14A only for investments yielding exempt income and not for book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal noted that the AO had discussed relevant facts, made detailed inquiries, and issued query memos to the assessee, who responded with evidence. The AO, after due inquiry, drew an adverse conclusion and made a part disallowance (50%) on an estimated basis, which is a plausible view. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's action disregarded Clause (c) of Explanation to Section 263(1), which places an embargo on revision when the assessment is already subject to appeal. The issue of disallowance was pending before the CIT(A), making it inappropriate for the PCIT to re-examine it under revisionary powers. The Tribunal also distinguished between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry', citing the decision in CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto, and stated that the PCIT cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry. Furthermore, where two views are possible and the AO has taken a plausible view, it cannot be treated as erroneous unless unsustainable in law or demonstrating non-application of mind. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT erred in directing the AO to take a different course of action and set aside the PCIT's order, quashing it. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that sales tax incentives granted for developing backward areas are capital receipts. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute disallowances under Section 14A only for investments yielding exempt income and not for book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that a technical error in mentioning the wrong section in the initial application does not warrant rejection if the application is otherwise eligible. The Tribunal also noted that having object clauses that permit expenditure outside India is not a bar to registration under Section 80G.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submissions regarding the timing of the transactions were not considered by the AO. The Tribunal also observed that a similar transaction was examined in AY 2017-18, where it was concluded that the sale occurred in AY 2018-19. The Tribunal found prima facie merit in the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were time-barred by 440 days. Despite notices being sent through RPAD and email, there was no response from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were time-barred by 440 days. Despite notices being sent through RPAD and email, there was no response from the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were time-barred by 440 days. Despite notices being sent through RPAD and email, there was no response from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2013-14, grounds 1 & 2 were allowed for statistical purposes, while grounds 3-5 were dismissed. For AY 2012-13, the issue of transfer pricing addition was restored to the TPO/Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2013-14, grounds 1 & 2 were allowed for statistical purposes, while grounds 3-5 were dismissed. For AY 2012-13, the issue of transfer pricing addition was restored to the TPO/Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay and the incorrect section filing were not deliberate but due to technical issues and manpower limitations. Considering the beneficial objects of the trust and CBDT circulars, the Tribunal found the assessee entitled to relief.
The Tribunal noted that the balance sheet figures were presented under different heads due to regrouping, causing a substantial increase in proprietor's funds. However, the purported clerical mistake was not brought to the AO's notice during initial proceedings, nor was a revised return filed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was significantly delayed due to the negligence of the previous authorized representative. While condoning the delay, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the PCIT's revisionary action under Section 263 was beyond his jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were time-barred by 440 days. Despite notices being sent through RPAD and email, there was no response from the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground challenging the reopening of assessment as not pressed. It partly allowed the deduction under Section 80-O, modifying the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's ground regarding the classification of capital gains from share sales as business income.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69A of the Act was unsustainable in law. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions where similar additions for 'on-money' payments in the same project were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to examine the assessee's submissions on merits and did not provide valid reasons to conclude the assessment order was erroneous. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made necessary inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's responses.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied as the assessee's claim and adjustments were based on a bonafide belief and the issues were debatable, with two possible views. The High Court admitting a question of law further supported the debatable nature of the issue. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee cannot be construed as 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS) within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act and Article 12(3)(b) of the India-Belgium DTAA. The Tribunal concurred with the view taken by a coordinate bench in the case of Blue Dart Express Limited. The reasoning was based on the principle of 'societas' (meaning of a word judged by its company), implying that 'technical' services, when sandwiched between 'managerial' and 'consultancy' services in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii), should not include services rendered without human involvement, supervision, or control. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide cogent material to establish that the services were technical in nature, noting contradictory observations by the AO himself. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the DRP reached its conclusion without carefully examining the nature of services, and most services did not satisfy the tests of managerial, technical, or consultancy services. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Departmental Authorities lacked clarity, as they simultaneously held the receipts to be both FTS and royalty, which is not permissible. The appeal was partly allowed, with the conclusion strictly based on the peculiar facts of the case. The legal issue raised in ground no. 1 was kept open, and other grounds were rendered academic or consequential.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had rightly worked out the revenue recognition as per the Guidance Note issued by ICAI. The authorities below had rejected the assessee's claim without plausible reasoning.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing exemptions under sections 54F and 54EC and treating the entire gain as Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee's ground regarding indexation from 1981 was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal found that the cash receipts were already included in the total turnover and taxed as business income, and the AO had not rejected the books of accounts. Therefore, making a further addition under Section 68 would lead to double taxation. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was not justified and accordingly deleted it.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable explanations for non-compliance, including office redevelopment and health issues of the key person. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity to submit necessary documentation for its exemption claim.