Loading ITAT cases…
316 orders · Page 4 of 7
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The Assessee was granted another opportunity to represent their case, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after considering additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 jurisdiction without examining the mandatory approval obtained under Section 153D. The assessment orders, having been passed with prior approval, could not be revised under Section 263 without first invalidating such approval.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessment orders were passed after obtaining mandatory approval under Section 153D. The PCIT failed to examine the validity of this approval, which is a prerequisite for revision.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the assessment orders were passed after obtaining mandatory approval under Section 153D. The PCIT failed to examine the validity of this approval, which is a prerequisite for revision.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- was not sustainable as it was based solely on third-party documents and statements without independent corroboration. The assessee was also denied the opportunity to cross-examine the key witness.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of statements recorded during a search, without corroborative material and without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine deponents or access the material, are unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that once the foundational Section 263 order is set aside and quashed, all consequential proceedings derived from it, including the subsequent assessment order, become null and void. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned decision to annul the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing evidence of the loans. The AO failed to bring any material to controvert this evidence, and the lender had sufficient funds. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application for regular registration was caused by an inadvertent mistake and misconception by the assessee. Considering the assessee is an old entity with a valid registration since 1996 and had already obtained registration u/s 12A, the delay was condoned. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal, relying on various High Court judgments, held that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement and that a minor delay should be condoned to prevent genuine hardship and denial of substantial exemption. Distinguishing the Wipro Ltd. case, the Tribunal condoned the 29-day delay in filing Form 10B, set aside the lower authorities' orders, and directed the Assessing Officer to consider the Form 10B as valid and decide the exemption claim on its merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The assessee failed to file a condonation of delay application or provide any sufficient explanation for the 97-day delay, rendering the appeal not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable due to inadvertence and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, which was further extended by Supreme Court orders. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea of inadvertence and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and other Coordinate Bench decisions, held that Section 80P(4) applies only to Co-operative Banks engaged in banking business and not to Co-operative Societies investing in other Co-operative Societies. It concluded that interest income derived by a Co-operative Society from investments with another Co-operative Society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Adopting the principle that any ambiguity in taxing provisions should favor the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the deduction and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was identical to previous appeals for other assessment years. Following the coordinate bench's decision in those cases, which relied on a Third Member's ruling, the Tribunal found the price charged by the assessee (Rs. 6.62 per unit) to be a valid CUP, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing evidence of the loans. The AO failed to bring any material to controvert this evidence, and the lender had sufficient funds. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal found that there was no delay in filing the appeal, contrary to the Ld. Commissioner's findings. The case was therefore remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision, with a directive to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to expedite the order within six months.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to follow the mandatory procedural requirements, specifically providing reasons for reopening and disposing of objections prior to issuing statutory notices and proceeding with assessment, vitiated the entire reopening process and the subsequent assessment order. Citing several High Court decisions reaffirming the mandatory nature of the GKN Driveshafts judgment, the tribunal quashed the reopening notice and assessment order.
The tribunal found a crucial unreconciled discrepancy between the SFT data, bank certificates, and the assessee's books of account regarding the quantum of cash deposits. As the CIT(A) did not provide a categorical finding on this reconciliation, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the issue concerning disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is a legacy issue that has been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench in preceding years, starting from Assessment Year 2009-10. In the decision for Assessment Year 2009-10, the Coordinate Bench held that where the assessee has substantial own funds, the presumption is that advances to sister concerns are made from its own funds. This was based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), which was followed in various other decisions. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay upheld this order in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009-10. The Coordinate Bench's order for Assessment Year 2009-10 has been consistently followed for subsequent assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the assessee's own case and the Coordinate Bench's decisions. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had substantial own funds (INR 1,359.10 crores) which exceeded the interest-bearing funds, leading to the assumption that interest-free funds were utilized for advancing interest-free loans. The interest-free advances given during the year (INR 7.01 crores) were not substantial compared to the preceding year. Furthermore, no adjustment was made by the AO in Assessment Year 2017-18 under Section 36(1)(iii). Given no change in material facts or position of law, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's grounds 4 and 5. The judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the transfer pricing issue (grounds 1-3), but the overall result indicates that the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, falling below the threshold prescribed by CBDT circulars. The cross-objection of the assessee was allowed, permitting claims for depreciation and additional depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loans. Since the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the addition made solely on third-party information without corroborative evidence and denying cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice. The burden is on the revenue to prove the undisclosed investment.
The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities. It noted that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) only clarifies that CSR expenditure is not for business purposes and cannot be deducted under that head. The Tribunal found that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for Section 80G deduction.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 for foreign tax credit is a procedural lapse and cannot deny a legitimate claim, restoring the matter to the AO for verification. The Tribunal also decided not to adjudicate the grounds challenging the validity of the assessment order as they became academic after granting relief on merits.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2018-19. Following that precedent, the upward adjustment made by the TPO/DRP was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude Acropetal Technologies Ltd. as a comparable due to low employee cost and significant R&D activities. It also upheld the inclusion of e4e Healthcare Business Services Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable, noting its acceptance in previous assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for proportionate IPO expenses was not allowable as the expenses were capital in nature and not directly incurred by the assessee. The arrangement was considered a tax-avoidance scheme, and the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly was applied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that both the assessment order and the first appellate order were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's inability to make effective representation. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that in a previous year (AY 2015-16), the AO himself concluded that the assessee's PAN was misused and made no addition. A police inquiry report also indicated that a namesake resident of Nagpur had used the assessee's PAN. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify the police inquiry report for the current assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 68, finding the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding cash in hand and deposits. The Tribunal also deleted the addition under Section 40A(3)(a), holding that the transactions were covered by the exceptions in Rule 6DD(d) as they involved adjustments for exchange of old gold with new.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed. Considering that there might have been a reasonable cause for the assessee's absence, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reasoning for estimating income at 8% based solely on the non-compliance with section 44AB was unsustainable. It was noted that the assessee maintained books of account, and no defects were pointed out. Furthermore, the estimation based on section 44AD was inappropriate as the assessee's turnover exceeded the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the explanation provided by the assessee as a 'sufficient cause' in light of the death of their mother. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of advancing substantial justice over technicalities, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector vs. Mst. Katiji & Others.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the issues on merits, which is contrary to the requirement of a reasoned appellate order. The assessee was not granted a proper opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) could not have remitted the matter back to the AO, as the assessment order was not passed ex parte. The CIT(A) was statutorily required to consider the legal grounds raised by the assessee, which it failed to do.
The ITAT, considering the interest of justice and the fact that the assessee could not effectively represent their case before the CIT(A), set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT, considering the interest of justice and the fact that the assessee could not effectively represent their case before the CIT(A), set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT, considering the interest of justice and the fact that the assessee could not effectively represent their case before the CIT(A), set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not record if a show cause notice was issued before rejecting the books of account or estimating income. Considering the assessment was completed during the COVID-19 pandemic and the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action ex parte, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that both assessment and CIT(A) orders were ex parte, and the assessee deserved another opportunity. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment, ensuring the assessee is given a fair opportunity.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had not erred in accepting additional evidence and that the Revenue had not provided sufficient material to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of accepting additional evidence without a remand report was not substantiated by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that this was a second round of litigation and that in the first round, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify records and determine royalty as per the APA. The Tribunal observed that the modified return filed pursuant to the APA was not considered by the lower authorities. Relying on a previous decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal allowed the ground in principle but remitted it back to the AO for verification of factual elements.
The Tribunal held that the sale of the immovable property had already been taxed in the hands of the assessee's husband, and the salary income had suffered tax by way of TDS. Therefore, taxing these again in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that the AO may have considered the salary income transaction twice.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify a particular charge for initiation of penalty proceedings and levying the penalty. The penalty levied was therefore liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that neither the assessee nor their representative attended the hearing, nor was an adjournment application filed. Inferring that the assessee was not keen to pursue the appeal, and considering the orders of the authorities below which justified the addition and were upheld by the CIT(A) after considering the assessee's submissions, the Tribunal found no infirmity.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied solely on the Investigation Wing report without independent inquiry. The transaction was made through banking channels with supporting documents and confirmations. The loan was repaid before any doubt was raised by the department. The repayment and documentary evidence sufficiently established the nature of the transaction, identity of the lender, and its genuineness. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the sale of the immoveable property, already taxed in the hands of the husband, could not be taxed again in the assessee's hands. The salary income was also found to have suffered taxation via TDS, and the AO had possibly considered it twice.
The tribunal found the Ld. Commissioner's conclusion that the appeal was dismissed to be factually incorrect, as it had partly allowed the assessee's claim. The tribunal rectified the order to reflect that the appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply with notices and provide documentation, deeming it deserving of no leniency. However, it also acknowledged the husband's claim for exemption and offering of the property transaction amount for taxation.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee's counsel submitted that they never received further hearing notices. Considering the circumstances and to provide substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one last opportunity.