Loading ITAT cases…
594 orders · Page 7 of 12
The Tribunal held that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the AO had failed to consider corpus donations, earmarked funds, and accumulations due to the non-furnishing of Form 10B. The Tribunal upheld the revisional order passed by the CIT.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were annulled for want of jurisdiction and procedural legitimacy, particularly for being initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under section 151A, and for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. Consequently, all consequential additions were set aside. Regarding the specific additions, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made towards alleged NOC receipts treated as capital gains and additions made under section 69A for unexplained money. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grievance concerning the deletion of diary entries not marked 'KB', agreeing with the CIT(A) that only entries specifically identified, explained, and linked to the assessee could be considered. The Revenue's plea for enhancement was also dismissed as not maintainable. The grounds raised by the Revenue regarding violation of Rule 46A were also dismissed. The assessees' appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that an application for regular 80G approval should not be rejected merely due to an inadvertent error in citing the wrong sub-clause, especially when the trust was already approved. It restored the application to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to rectify the mistake.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in cancelling the 12A registration, finding no violation of Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) or Section 13(2)(c). Regarding the 80G registration, the Tribunal found the CIT did not follow previous directions and remitted the issue back for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in cancelling the 12A registration, finding no violation of Section 12AB(1)(b)(i)(B) or Section 13(2)(c). Regarding the 80G registration, the Tribunal found the CIT did not follow previous directions and remitted the issue back for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessments framed pursuant to notices under section 148 or 153A, based on the seized diaries, statements, and MIS sheets, stood annulled for want of jurisdiction, procedural legitimacy, and evidentiary support. Specifically, additions made towards alleged NOC receipts treated as capital gains were deleted in full. Additions made under section 69A or 69C for unexplained money or expenditure were also deleted. Assessments reopened under section 147 were quashed as void ab initio for initiation by an officer lacking jurisdiction, contravening the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The assessment orders were invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. All consequential adjustments, including disallowances and interest, were rendered academic. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grievance regarding the deletion of diary entries not marked 'KB', agreeing with the CIT(A) that only specifically identified and linked entries could be considered. The Revenue's plea for enhancement was not maintainable as it sought to introduce new sources of income. The grounds relating to violation of Rule 46A were dismissed as no evidence was produced before the CIT(A) in violation of the rule. The assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was not valid. It found that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on information received from the investigation wing regarding shell companies, which indicated a change of opinion rather than a tangible reason to believe income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already disclosed the share capital in its original return. Regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 297 ITR 315 (SC) and other precedents, stating that once the assessee proves the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, the onus shifts to the revenue to prove otherwise. Since the revenue failed to establish that the share capital was not genuine, the addition was deleted. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessees were to be allowed, and the cross-appeals preferred by the Revenue were to be dismissed. Regarding the additions on account of alleged NOC receipts treated as capital gains, the Tribunal directed their deletion in full. Additions made under section 69A or 69C towards unexplained money or expenditure were also directed to be deleted. The Tribunal quashed assessments reopened under section 147 as void ab initio for having been initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under section 151A. Furthermore, the assessment orders were invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grievance regarding diary entries not marked 'KB', agreeing with the CIT(A) that only entries specifically identified, explained, and linked to the assessee could be considered for assessment. The Revenue's plea for enhancement was dismissed as not maintainable. Grounds relating to the violation of Rule 46A were also dismissed. All consequential adjustments were rendered academic. The ratio decidendi is that assessments based on procedurally flawed notices, lack of jurisdiction, and insufficient evidentiary support from seized material, especially when not properly linked to the assessee, are liable to be annulled.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be denied the deduction under Section 35AC merely because the trust's approval was subsequently withdrawn. The explanation to Section 35AC(2) explicitly states that withdrawal of approval does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the deduction. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be denied the deduction under Section 35AC merely because the trust's approval was subsequently withdrawn. The explanation to Section 35AC(2) explicitly states that withdrawal of approval does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the deduction. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was incorrect.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for both assessment years for statistical purposes. The primary ground pressed by the assessee, and which the Tribunal found persuasive, was the violation of natural justice principles. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed based on the statement of Shri Rajendra Jain, but the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal acknowledged that this issue was central to the assessee's grievance. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matters to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the party on whose statement reliance was placed for making the impugned additions. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the AO by furnishing all required details. As the matter was remanded, other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated at that stage. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order relying on third-party statements without affording the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent is bad in law and violates principles of natural justice, necessitating a remand for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. The primary ground pressed by the assessee was the violation of principles of natural justice due to the lack of opportunity to cross-examine the person whose statement was relied upon by the Assessing Officer (AO) for making the impugned additions. The Tribunal, considering this crucial aspect and the fact that the matter was being remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication, held that the assessee should be provided with the opportunity to cross-examine the party on whose statement reliance was placed. The AO was directed to provide this opportunity and was also empowered to issue necessary notices or summons. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully with the AO. Consequently, the ground related to the violation of natural justice was allowed for statistical purposes. As the matter was remanded, other grievances raised by the assessee were not adjudicated at that stage. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the appeal for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case, file necessary documents, and rectify any defects. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders framed pursuant to notices under section 148 or 153A, based on the seized diaries, statements, and MIS sheets, were annulled for want of jurisdiction, procedural legitimacy, and evidentiary support. The Tribunal found that the assessments were initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme and invalidated the assessment orders for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. Consequently, all consequential additions were set aside. Specifically, additions towards alleged NOC receipts treated as capital gains were deleted in full. Additions made under section 69A or 69C for unexplained money or expenditure were also deleted. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grievance against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions relating to diary entries not marked 'KB', agreeing that only entries specifically identified, explained, and linked to the assessee could be considered. The Revenue's plea for enhancement was dismissed as not maintainable. The grounds raised by the Revenue regarding violation of Rule 46A were also dismissed. The assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders were liable to be annulled for want of jurisdiction and procedural legitimacy. Specifically, assessments reopened under section 147 were quashed as void ab initio for having been initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under section 151A. Furthermore, the assessment orders were invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions relating to diary entries not specifically identified, explained, and linked to the assessee. The revenue's attempt to revive these entries was deemed a futile exercise. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's plea for enhancement of income, citing lack of cogent material and the limitations on enhancement powers. Consequently, all additions made towards alleged NOC receipts treated as capital gains and additions under section 69A or 69C towards unexplained money or expenditure were deleted in full. All consequential adjustments were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 4,44,93,42,724 is deleted. It found that Netflix India's Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) profile unequivocally categorizes it as a limited-risk distributor. The Tribunal agreed that TNMM was the most appropriate method and rejected the 'Other Method' adopted by the TPO and the DRP's attribution model as unsustainable in law and fact. The Tribunal expressed concern over the tendency to conflate technological presence with economic ownership, stating that mere presence of servers or personnel does not confer value-creation status unless an Indian entity controls, develops, or exploits underlying intangible assets. The enhancement by the DRP under Section 40(a)(i) was dismissed as academic because the dispute was resolved under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme-2020, as clarified by CBDT Circular No. 12 of 2024. Grounds challenging jurisdiction were dismissed as academic, with liberty granted to the assessee to raise them in future proceedings if needed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment order to correct an error in the computation of assessed income, specifically the figure for income computed under Section 143(1)(a). Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234D was directed to be computed in accordance with law as a consequential matter. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A was dismissed as premature. The ratio decidendi is that an entity performing limited functions, owning no IP, bearing no entrepreneurial risk, and being reimbursed for costs with a fixed markup should be treated as a limited-risk distributor, and its remuneration should not exceed a routine distributor's return.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the assessee, a banking company constituted as a 'corresponding new bank'. This decision was based on previous rulings by the Special Bench and a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were void ab initio for want of jurisdiction, procedural legitimacy, and evidentiary support. The assessments were quashed as having been initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under section 151A. Furthermore, the assessment orders were invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. Consequently, all consequential additions, including those towards alleged NOC receipts treated as capital gains and unexplained money under section 69A or 69C, were deleted and set aside. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grievance regarding the deletion of diary entries not marked 'KB', agreeing with the CIT(A) that only entries specifically identified, explained, and linked to the assessee could be considered. The Revenue's attempt to seek enhancement of income was dismissed, citing Supreme Court judgments in CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry and Nirbheram Daluram v. CIT, which limit enhancement powers to material before the appellate authority and within the scope of the assessment. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds relating to violation of Rule 46A, finding no evidence of additional evidence being entertained by the CIT(A). All assessee appeals were allowed, and Revenue appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders were liable to be annulled for want of jurisdiction and procedural legitimacy. Specifically, assessments reopened under Section 147 were quashed as void ab initio for initiation by an officer lacking jurisdiction in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under Section 151A. Furthermore, the assessment orders were invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. Consequently, all consequential additions were set aside. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal held that additions made towards alleged NOC receipts treated as capital gains were deleted in full. Additions made under Section 69A or 69C for unexplained money or expenditure were also deleted. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grievance against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions relating to diary entries not marked 'KB', agreeing that such entries lacked corroborative proof and were rightly held outside the assessee's accountability. The Revenue's plea for enhancement was also dismissed as not maintainable. The Tribunal upheld the deletions and relief granted by the CIT(A) to the extent they survived the annulment of the substantive assessments.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were void ab initio for want of jurisdiction and procedural legitimacy. Specifically, it found that the reassessments initiated under Section 148/153A were invalid due to the AO's contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under Section 151A. Furthermore, the assessment orders were invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019, as they lacked a valid pre-generated Director Identification Number (DIN). The Tribunal also agreed with the assessee that no evidence was produced before the CIT(A) in violation of Rule 46A. Consequently, all additions made on account of alleged NOC receipts treated as capital gains and unexplained money under Section 69A/69C were deleted in full. The Tribunal upheld the deletions and relief granted by the CIT(A) to the extent they were justified, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The operative directions were to annul the reassessment orders and set aside all consequential additions. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any issue regarding the merits of the additions if the assessments were found to be valid, as the primary issue of jurisdiction and procedural validity was determinative.
The Tribunal held that entries in seized diaries not specifically identified, explained, and linked to the assessee lacked evidentiary value. The Tribunal also found procedural irregularities in the assessment proceedings, including lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with the Faceless Assessment Scheme.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unexplained investments based on the custodian's letter was not sustainable and directed its deletion. It also allowed the deduction of interest expenditure under Section 57 of the Act, following Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that a delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural irregularity, not a fatal defect, if the form is available before the assessment is completed. However, it upheld the addition for the non-utilization of accumulated funds as it violated Section 11(3).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction by submitting purchase invoices, delivery challans, and bank statements. The AO failed to conduct independent enquiries or issue a notice to the supplier, relying solely on information from the GST department.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to unavoidable and sufficient cause, constituting a bonafide mistake. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without providing an opportunity to explain, which violates principles of natural justice. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a co-operative credit society exclusively dealing with its members and is not a co-operative bank, thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Regarding the demonetization period deposits, the Tribunal found that the AO failed to make necessary inquiries from identifiable members, upholding the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) regarding the interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal restored the appeals to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that services were rendered and that some benefit accrued. The Tribunal noted that a similar approach by the TPO/DRP in a previous assessment year was rejected by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) regarding the interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal restored the appeals to the AO for de novo assessment.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO failed to establish a live link between the information and escapement of income, and that the assessee's investors' creditworthiness was not disproven. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on low tax effect under CBDT Circular No. 5/2024.
The Tribunal held that expenditure on dyes and moulds is revenue expenditure, consistently decided in favour of the assessee by Co-ordinate Benches in its own case for preceding years, and upheld the CIT(A)'s finding. Regarding the claim for income tax paid in Chile, the Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) was correct in admitting the fresh claim, it needed to be examined in light of the law. Therefore, the AO was directed to verify the claim and decide its allowability. For software expenses, the Tribunal followed a Co-ordinate Bench decision in Bajaj Holdings and Investment Ltd. (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) which held software maintenance charges as allowable, and upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the expenditure was revenue in nature. The judgment does not explicitly record findings on issues 2, 3, 4, and 5, but they are implicitly addressed by the overall outcome of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not made out a case of bogus accommodation entries, relying solely on investigation reports without independent verification. The transactions were conducted through registered brokers on stock exchanges, and the assessee showed only a nominal profit, negating the claim of tax evasion.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not made out a case of bogus accommodation entries, relying solely on investigation reports without independent verification. The transactions were conducted through registered brokers on stock exchanges, and the assessee showed only a nominal profit, negating the claim of tax evasion.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 56(2)(x) could not be sustained without proper verification of the assessee's claim of compensatory allotment. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a co-operative credit society exclusively dealing with its members and is not a co-operative bank, thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Regarding the demonetization period deposits, the Tribunal found that the AO failed to make necessary inquiries from identifiable members, upholding the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merit and declined to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee filed its return of income on the extended due date, 07/11/2022, and along with it, filed the audit report in Form 10B. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P). Ltd., which held that the provision regarding furnishing of the audit report along with the return is procedural and directory in nature, and substantial compliance would suffice. The Court further held that the benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the audit report, and it is permissible to produce the audit report at a later stage. The Tribunal also referred to a co-ordinate bench decision in Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, which allowed the delay in filing Form 10B when it was filed along with the return of income within the extended period. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in not considering the additional evidence in the form of bank statements of the shareholder companies. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made an addition of Rs. 37,37,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the share premium received as unexplained cash credit. The assessee had provided various documents, including bank statements of the investors, to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO's conclusion was based on the statements of directors of unrelated companies, which the Tribunal found insufficient to disprove the evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that once the assessee discharges the initial burden of proving the nature and source of credit, the onus shifts to the AO to disprove it. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and had not given a proper finding on the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and passing a speaking order. The Tribunal explicitly left undecided the ultimate finding on the addition, as it was to be decided by the CIT(A) upon fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the delay more dispassionately, given the assessee's non-resident status and past residence in Kolhapur. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposited and that the sales were out of accounted stock. The addition made by the AO was considered a double addition to the trading results.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) regarding the interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal restored the appeals to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) regarding the interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal restored the appeals to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, even if not deductible under Section 37(1) as business expenditure, can be eligible for deduction under Section 80G if the conditions are met. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be wrongly invoked.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on non-compete fee was identical to the one for AY 2008-09, which was remanded by the Tribunal for fresh decision. In the subsequent proceedings for AY 2008-09, the AO, after referring the matter to the Valuation Officer, accepted the valuation and allowed the claim of depreciation. The Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order also noted that the AO had accepted the valuation report and allowed the claim of depreciation. The Tribunal observed that the AO himself had accepted the valuation determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer and allowed depreciation. Therefore, the issue was covered in favour of the assessee based on the AO's own acceptance of the valuation in earlier proceedings. The Tribunal did not decide the issue of cost of TV serials and film software library, as these grounds were not elaborated upon in the provided text, and the focus was solely on the non-compete fee. The operative direction was to uphold the Ld. Commissioner's order regarding the non-compete fee.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for deduction under Section 80G are met if the recipient institution is registered and the donor fulfills the conditions. The AO had examined the details and allowed the deduction, finding no error or prejudice to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal because the tax dispute was settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.
The Tribunal decided to give the appellant one more opportunity to provide all details before the CIT(A), directing compliance with hearing notices and no further adjournments. The CIT(A) is to reconsider the case based on the new details.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely on the basis of an estimated addition. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the addition was made solely on estimation.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the absence of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, as confirmed by the report from the AO stating that no such notice was traceable. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that section 292BB of the Act does not cure the complete absence of a notice. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271G is discretionary and not mandatory. Considering the assessee's substantial compliance and the fact that the Transfer Pricing Officer completed the assessment with the submitted details, the levy of penalty was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not file the necessary details before the AO and the CIT(A), but these details are now available and have been submitted with an application for admission of additional evidence. In the interest of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO is directed to consider the details filed by the assessee and pass an order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order on the issues raised and allowed the grounds for statistical purposes. The issue regarding the adjustment of business losses was implicitly restored to the AO for reconsideration along with the primary issue.