Loading ITAT cases…
548 orders · Page 8 of 11
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) based on itemized GP percentage determination was not tenable, as it is unrealistic to expect identical GP percentages on each item. The Tribunal found no rationality in sustaining such an addition and deleted the addition made by the AO in toto.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) based on itemized GP percentage determination was not tenable and unrealistic. The Tribunal found no rationality in applying an aggregated GP percentage to individual items and deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) based on itemized GP percentage determination was not tenable and unrealistic. The Tribunal found no rationality in applying an aggregated GP percentage to individual items and deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) based on itemized GP percentage determination was not tenable and unrealistic. The Tribunal found no rationality in applying an aggregated GP percentage to individual items and deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of transfer pricing adjustment, noting that the Assessing Officer (AO) and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) relied on the assessee's agreed price rate of US $ 161.20 per kg for Deltamethin supply under the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. The Tribunal held that this was incorrect as the CUP method requires a transaction between unrelated parties, not a controlled transaction between associate enterprises. It referred to previous Tribunal decisions in Technimont ICB Pvt. Ltd. and Pino Bisazza Glass Pvt. Ltd. which held that an accepted net profit margin from a transaction with an associate enterprise cannot be taken as a comparable uncontrolled transaction. The Tribunal reversed the AO's action on this legal principle, noting that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had already deleted the adjustment. The Revenue's ground related to this was dismissed. Regarding brand royalty, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment, respectfully following a co-ordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for a preceding year. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. The judgment also mentions that Ground No. 14 in the Revenue's appeal was general and needed no specific adjudication. The overall result was that the appeals by both the assessee and the Revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without adhering to the mandatory provisions of section 149(1)(b) and section 151(ii) of the Act. The notice under section 148 was issued on 28.07.2022 for AY 2016-17, which is beyond the three-year period from the end of the assessment year. Although the escaped income was Rs. 35,00,000/-, which is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the proviso to section 149(1)(b) requires that if more than three years and three months have elapsed, the AO must possess books of accounts or other documents or evidence related to an asset or expenditure or transaction or entries which show that the income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more. In this case, the escaped income was below Rs. 50,00,000/-, and the notice was issued after the extended period without fulfilling the condition of having tangible material to that extent. Furthermore, the sanction under section 151 was granted by the Pr. Commissioner, whereas, as per the new regime effective from 01.04.2021, for reassessments initiated after three years where the escaped income is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the approval was required to be granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's contentions on both counts and quashed the assessment. The Tribunal refrained from dealing with other grounds raised on merits as they became academic. The ratio decidendi is that reassessment proceedings initiated after the expiry of the normal time limits must strictly comply with the conditions stipulated in sections 149 and 151, especially concerning the nature of material available and the authority granting sanction.
The Tribunal held that Section 43CB, mandating the percentage completion method, is applicable to real estate business from AY 2017-18 onwards. While confirming the AO's action of applying Section 43CB, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the estimated profits after considering the assessee's submissions regarding errors in the calculation.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) based on itemized GP percentage determination was not tenable and unrealistic. The Tribunal found no rationality in applying an aggregated GP percentage to individual items and deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) based on itemized GP percentage determination was not tenable and unrealistic. The Tribunal found no rationality in applying an aggregated GP percentage to individual items and deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) based on itemized GP percentage determination was not tenable and unrealistic. The Tribunal found no rationality in applying an aggregated GP percentage to individual items and deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) based on itemized GP percentage determination was not tenable and unrealistic. The Tribunal found no rationality in applying an aggregated GP percentage to individual items and deleted the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that due to the peculiar facts and circumstances, and the issue remaining to be adjudicated properly, it was appropriate to remand the case to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to file submissions and documents, and the remand was subject to a cost.
The Tribunal, in its decision, addressed several grounds raised by both the assessee and the Revenue. Regarding the transfer pricing adjustment on brand royalty (Ground No. 13 in Revenue's appeal), the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the adjustment, respectfully following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a preceding year with a similar factual matrix. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the DRP's direction on this count, noting that the Revenue's representative failed to pinpoint any exception in the facts of the instant case. The Revenue's appeal on this substantive ground was dismissed. The Tribunal also noted that Ground No. 14 in the Revenue's appeal was general in nature and required no specific adjudication. The judgment indicates that the appeal by the assessee and the appeal by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Specific findings on the other grounds raised by the assessee (depreciation, network site rentals, Section 14A, roaming charges, and trade discounts) are not detailed in the provided excerpt. The operative direction is that the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without confronting the assessee about the delay in filing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including the chance to file an application for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was merely a director of the company that sold the property, and the company had already declared the transaction and paid tax. Finding that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity and the merits were not examined, the ITAT remanded the case to the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to liberally consider condonation of delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing adequate opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals for previous years were pending and their outcome would impact the current year's appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the pending appeals first and then pass a detailed order on merits for the present appeal.
The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest was unsustainable as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the advances and no borrowed funds were utilized. The doctrine of real income prevents taxing hypothetical income that has not accrued.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The onus on the assessee was discharged, and the AO failed to establish any deficiency in the provided evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. Relying on previous ITAT decisions concerning the same investor companies, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-compliance bona fide, establishing a reasonable cause. It held that the assessee was effectively denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that in an abated assessment year, the assessee is entitled to file a revised return under Section 153A and make fresh claims, as it replaces the original return. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s view that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the purchase transaction for the shop occurred in AY 2019-20, not in AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, thus deleting additions for those years. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found the Revenue's reliance on the pen drive and statement to be uncorroborated and lacking adherence to principles of natural justice, deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that it would be fair and reasonable to remit the matter to the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the application for condonation of delay and decide the matter afresh. The assessee was directed to attend proceedings and submit necessary documentation.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a third-party statement without corroborative evidence. The assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to support their claim, which the AO had disregarded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the merits. The Tribunal found that the AO invoked section 50C based on an assumption and without considering various market realities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the transaction for the shop purchase occurred in AY 2019-20, not in AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, thus deleting additions for those years. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found the Revenue's reliance on the pen drive and statement to be uncorroborated and lacking adherence to principles of natural justice, leading to the deletion of additions.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a third-party statement without corroborative evidence. The assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to support their claim, which the AO had disregarded.
The Tribunal found a clear nexus between the interest paid on the loan and the interest income earned, as the borrowed funds were directly utilized for earning interest income. Following the precedent of *CIT v. Taj International Jewellers*, the Tribunal held that the interest expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for earning taxable interest income, thus allowable under Section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that once an assessee's application for settlement is accepted by the ITSC and a final order is passed, the assessing officer loses jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for those years. The assessing officer's actions in reopening the case under Section 153A were beyond his jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee consistently followed the cash basis of accounting, income not actually received during the year should not be taxed. It also directed the AO to allow the Chapter VI-A deduction, which was originally allowed and supported by proofs.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a fair opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a third-party statement without corroborative evidence. The assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to support their claim, which the AO had disregarded.
The Tribunal held that once an assessee's application for settlement is accepted by the ITSC and a final order is passed, the assessing officer loses jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for those years. The assessing officer's actions in reopening the case under Section 153A were beyond his jurisdiction.
The tribunal noted that a fresh assessment had been completed pursuant to the revisional directions and the assessee had obtained the required relief. Therefore, the assessee did not wish to pursue the appeal and sought its withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the application was contrary to the facts. Both the order dated 1.7.2021 and 14.8.2025 passed by the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing evidence of the loan transaction, including Shri Shaikh's confirmation, affidavit, ITR, and audited financials, which established his creditworthiness. The addition of Rs. 12,50,000/- was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the factual matrix was mixed and incomplete, necessitating restoration to the Assessing Officer (AO) for limited verification. The Tribunal noted several aspects not adequately examined by the AO or CIT(A). These include the unexplained cash component of withdrawals, material inconsistency between Form 26AS and Form 16 regarding TDS, and the unverified reversal of TDS by the employer. The Tribunal also pointed out that the company's books showed the amounts as 'advance', contradicting the AO's conclusion of bonuses or personal income. The absence of the employer's complete response to the notice under section 133(6) was a significant lacuna. The Tribunal reiterated the principle that additions under section 69A require establishing ownership of unexplained money and that reasonable estimation is permissible when expenditure is not fully substantiated. Accordingly, the matter was restored to the AO with specific directions to verify TDS reversal, the employer's treatment of advances, obtain the employer's section 133(6) response, allow the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate expenses (including cash withdrawals), and to estimate a reasonable disallowance for unsubstantiated cash withdrawals rather than making a full addition. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a fair opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it failed to clearly specify the charge against the assessee, either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of clarity vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly examine the documents furnished by the assessee. The CIT(A) should have analyzed the evidence to satisfy the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the purchase transaction for the shop occurred in AY 2019-20 and not in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19, thus deleting additions for those years. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found that the Revenue relied solely on uncorroborated electronic evidence and third-party statements without confronting the assessee or providing an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The ITAT held that refunds should be first adjusted against the interest component and the balance against the principal tax component, following judicial precedents and principles of fairness. The AO was directed to re-compute the interest under Section 244A accordingly.
The Tribunal held that in an abated assessment year, the assessee is entitled to file a revised return under Section 153A and make fresh claims, as it replaces the original return. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s view that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s reasoning for rejecting the application under Section 80G(5) based on the existence of certain objects in the MoA was not justified. The Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 11(1) do not fall under 'any other law' as contemplated by the Explanation to Section 12AB(4). Section 11 restricts exemption to income applied for charitable purposes in India but does not state that application of income outside India for carrying out objects is a violation of 'any other law'. Therefore, the application of income outside India does not constitute a 'specified violation' under Section 12AB(4). The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's Section 12AB registration had already been granted, indicating the CIT was satisfied with its objects. The Tribunal distinguished the case of *Sila for Change Foundation* by noting that the trust deed in that case explicitly stated providing services outside India, which was not the case here. The Tribunal concluded that the existence of an object for carrying out an activity outside India does not enable the CIT(E) to deny registration under Section 12AB, and by extension, Section 80G. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 80G.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the re-registration application during the Covid-19 pandemic period should not be the sole reason for denying exemption. Given that the assessee later obtained a new registration and considering the facts and merits, the case was remitted back to the AO for verification of exemption claims and expenses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 168 days subject to a deposit of Rs. 11,000. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) that was not considered and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the facts of the assessee's case were distinct from the *Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals* case. It ruled that the issue of interest computation involved debatable and contentious matters, which cannot be rectified under Section 154 as a 'mistake apparent from record.' Therefore, the AO's rectification was deemed bad in law and not sustainable.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) that was not considered and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was without jurisdiction. This was because the AO could not have disallowed the deduction in the reassessment proceedings, as the original assessment had already allowed it, and the reassessment was for a distinct issue. Furthermore, the revision was initiated based on a proposal from the AO, not independent satisfaction of the PCIT.