Loading ITAT cases…
316 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal held that Section 35DDA is not applicable as the payment was made to AAI, not directly to employees for voluntary retirement. The payment was considered a contractual obligation incurred solely for business purposes, substituting recurring revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer-CPC must provide an intimation to the assessee before making adjustments under Section 143(1) and must provide reasons for such adjustments. Since this procedure was not followed, the intimation order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences submitted by the assessee (purchase deed, payment proofs, sale of old property) are crucial and require proper examination. The matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, attributing the non-compliance before the CIT(A) to the death of the assessee's CA and the completion of the assessment under section 144. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to decide the issues on merit after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without affording an opportunity for a hearing on merits. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others, the Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that a litigant does not benefit from delay and refusing condonation could result in a meritorious matter being thrown out.
The Tribunal noted the Assessee's consistent non-compliance with statutory notices and opportunities for rejoinder, which led to ex-parte orders at the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) levels. Despite the Assessee's conduct, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity for a just and proper decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) reduced the disallowance rate without any basis or cogent reasons, relying on the assessee's documents without proper verification. The AO had made the addition based on the assessee being a beneficiary of accommodation entries in the shape of bogus bills, and had estimated the income accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional grounds raised by the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice and statutory mandate. Regarding the Revenue's grounds, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on airport infrastructure like taxiways and aprons, treating them as plant and machinery, by following its own prior decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the AO's action of bringing the long-term capital gains on the sale of SRK Industries Ltd. shares as unexplained income. The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 68 towards the proceeds of sale of listed shares, which gave rise to the claimed exempt long-term capital gain under Section 10(38). The reasoning was based on the fact that the purchase and sale of shares were conducted through a recognized stock exchange and registered stockbrokers, payments were made through banking channels, and Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not criticized the documentation and there was no allegation against the assessee for participating in price rigging. The Tribunal also deleted the consequential addition of commission amounting to Rs. 90,432/- made on an estimated basis. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including the Bombay High Court decision in *PCIT vs. Indravadan Jain HUF* and coordinate bench decisions concerning the same scrip (SRK Industries Ltd.), which held in favor of the assessee in similar transactions. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the exemption under Section 10(38) as claimed. The ground related to natural justice was not adjudicated as the appeal was allowed on merits.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 50C, including the tolerance limit under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), are curative in nature and retrospectively applicable. The difference between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration was found to be 1.065%, which is below the 10% tolerance limit. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The CIT(A) was justified in restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the submitted evidence, especially since the AO failed to provide a remand report despite opportunities.
The Tribunal ruled that the transactions in ICL shares were genuine, not a 'penny stock' manipulation. They found no evidence of the assessee's involvement in price rigging and noted a reasonable price increase over the holding period.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The approval for issuing the notice was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), which is contrary to the mandate of Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This vitiated the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has co-terminus powers and can examine additional evidence. The evidence produced by the assessee before the CIT(A) adequately explained the source of investment, and the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The Revenue's contention regarding violation of Rule 46A was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under section 148 was not obtained from the prescribed authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. This non-compliance with the statutory requirement goes to the root of the jurisdiction and renders the reassessment proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment proceedings initiated after June 30, 2021, for AY 2017-2018, should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. The approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner was invalid, rendering the Assessing Officer without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the approval for the reassessment notice was not obtained from the correct specified authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to pass the order and issue the notice, rendering the entire reassessment proceeding invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without addressing the merits. Citing a previous order in the assessee's own case (ITA No. 777/Mum/2025), the Tribunal held that the assessee is a co-operative society and not a bank, making Section 80P(4) inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that the payments for software were not 'royalty' under the DTAA or the Income Tax Act, as the assessee acquired only a license to use the software, not the copyright. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that payments for software purchased under End User License Agreements (EULAs) are not royalty, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd., held that payments for software under an EULA do not constitute royalty. The rights granted are for use, not for copyright, and thus do not give rise to income taxable in India requiring TDS.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, held that the payments for software under End User License Agreements (EULAs) do not constitute royalty. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on these payments.
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 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 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 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 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 held that the interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments in other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal emphasized that a co-operative bank remains a co-operative society, and Section 80P(4) applies to deductions claimed by the co-operative bank itself, not by a co-operative society earning interest from it.
The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated and retracted statements are not sustainable. The seized excel sheet was also considered insufficient evidence without corroboration.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on uncorroborated and retracted statements, without independent material, are not sustainable. The reliance on an excel sheet without corroboration was also found to be insufficient.
The Tribunal observed that the grounds of appeal and cross-objections related to the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the JAO post the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Tribunal restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the matter involved amendments by the Finance Bill and that the issue of reassessment proceedings needed to be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with due opportunity to the parties. For the cross-objection, the Tribunal found that the grounds were not raised before the CIT(A) and needed factual verification, hence it was also restored to the AO.
The Tribunal decided the issues based on its prior rulings in the assessee's own cases for AY 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, and other related cases. For Ground 1, the assessee did not press the ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed. Ground 2 was general and covered by other grounds. For Grounds 3 and 4, the Tribunal held that the factual matrix, contractual arrangements, and nature of activities remained materially the same as in earlier years, and no change in law or facts was pointed out by the revenue. Following its coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a business connection in India under Section 9(1) nor a PE under the India-Singapore tax treaty. Therefore, income earned from Indian cedents is not taxable in India. The additions made by the AO and sustained by the DRP on this count were deleted. For Grounds 5 and 6, the Tribunal found that the issues were covered by earlier decisions, and the revenue's case did not survive. The additions were deleted. For Ground 7, the Tribunal held that the support services income received by the assessee from SRIB and SRGBS does not qualify as FTS under Article 12 of the India-Singapore tax treaty and is also not taxable as business income in the absence of a PE. Therefore, the additions were deleted. For Ground 8, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow credit of TDS after verification. Grounds 9 to 11 were consequential and needed no specific adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the issues were fully covered in favor of the assessee by coordinate bench decisions and its independent examination of facts and law confirmed this. The revenue's case did not survive.
The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act were barred by limitation, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional High Court. Consequently, all consequential proceedings based on such invalid notice were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 29/12/2016 was passed without following the mandatory procedure under Section 144C of the Act, specifically by not passing a draft assessment order. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, rendering the basis for the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) and the order was passed ex parte without adjudicating on merits. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. The case fell under the pre-amended section 149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021. This section requires that for reopening beyond three years, the escaped income must be represented in the form of an 'asset', and the quantum should be Rs. 50,00,000/- or more. The Tribunal found that the allegation of bogus purchases is a revenue item and cannot be treated as an asset unless it creates a specific asset reflected in the balance sheet. Since no such allegation was made by the revenue, the prerequisite conditions of section 149(1)(b) were not complied with. Following the ratio in IDFC Ltd. and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the notice under section 148 was invalid, rendering the consequential assessment bad in law. Therefore, the addition made was deleted. Other contentions were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, a cooperative credit society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). This was based on a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for AY 2013-14 was decided by a co-ordinate bench, which upheld the deletion of the addition. The co-ordinate bench held that Section 37(1) of the Act allows deduction of revenue expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, and the assessee had discharged the onus by providing documentary evidence. The Tribunal further relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd, which held that in cases of completed assessments without any incriminating material found during a search, no addition can be made by the AO.
The assessee contended that the liabilities had not ceased to exist and the creditors had confirmed the balances. However, the assessee failed to provide evidence to substantiate this claim or explain the non-payment.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). A cost was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance with notices.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). A cost was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance with notices.
The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by a previous decision of a Co-ordinate Bench. They admitted additional evidence showing that the deductees had already paid tax and restored the matter to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by a previous decision of a Co-ordinate Bench. They admitted additional evidence showing that the deductees had already paid tax and restored the matter to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by a previous decision of a Co-ordinate Bench. They admitted additional evidence showing that the deductees had already paid tax and restored the matter to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed time limit of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as the alleged escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(E) had rightly identified objects potentially violating Section 13(1)(b), the assessee had clarified that these objects were not acted upon and had been amended. The Tribunal found that the contraventions were addressed, and therefore, restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(E) had rightly identified objects potentially violating Section 13(1)(b), the assessee had clarified that these objects were not acted upon and had been amended. The Tribunal found that the contraventions were addressed, and therefore, restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by a previous decision of a Co-ordinate Bench. They admitted additional evidence showing that the deductees had already paid tax and restored the matter to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.