Loading ITAT cases…
986 orders · Page 18 of 20
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal in limine, despite dealing with the merits, was not valid. The Tribunal further ruled that the disallowance of the Section 80P(2)(d) deduction by the CPC was bad in law for the assessment year in question, as such adjustments were not permissible under Section 143(1) prior to the Finance Act, 2021.
The Tribunal held that for the area of 851.21 square feet allotted in lieu of the original flat, the deeming fiction of Section 56(2)(x) is not applicable, following the decision in Anil Dattaram Pitale vs. ITO (2025) 173 taxmann.com 51 (Mumbai-Trib). The Tribunal found that this part of the transaction was not a case of receiving immovable property for inadequate consideration. Regarding the additional area of 544.19 square feet, the Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of owning 15% share and that part payment was made in February 2016. The assessee also claimed the purchase rate was at par with or above the ready reckoner rate. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the jurisdictional AO for a limited verification of the facts regarding the payment of part consideration in February 2016 and whether the additional area was purchased at par with the ready reckoner rate. The AO is to pass an order in accordance with law concerning the assessee's share in the impugned flat.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of two comparable companies, Axis and Inmacs, from the transfer pricing analysis due to their lack of functional comparability with the assessee's services. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment was to be recomputed.
The assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeal, stating that they had obtained a renewal of registration for a subsequent period. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal held that SAVWIPL is an independent entity and not a PE of Audi AG in India. Consequently, the income earned by Audi AG from sales to SAVWIPL on a principal-to-principal basis is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal at the threshold under section 249(4)(b) without adjudicating the grounds on merits or legal issues. Considering the facts, circumstances, and submissions, including the concession by the Revenue's DR on the applicability of section 249(4)(b), the Tribunal found that restoring the matter for fresh adjudication would meet the ends of justice. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing, adjudicating all grounds raised by the assessee, including merits and legal grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions or the validity of reassessment proceedings, leaving all issues open for the CIT(A)'s independent consideration.
The Tribunal held that the appeal challenging the rejection of 12AB registration has become infructuous as fresh registration was granted. For the 80G approval, it was remanded to the CIT(E) to consider granting approval, as the rejection was consequential to the 12AB rejection.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to establish any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, especially after the assessment was initially completed under Section 143(3) and the reopening was initiated after four years.
The Tribunal found that the disallowance under Section 40A(9) was inadvertently reported at the wrong place in the ITR and that the revenue had not brought any factual contradiction. The Tribunal also held that, as per CBDT Circular No. 37/2016, any enhanced profit due to disallowances is eligible for deduction under Chapter VI-A.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be unintentional and due to sufficient cause, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO's re-characterization of sale consideration as 'other income' was based on assumptions and surmises without cogent evidence. The purchase commitment was a genuine commercial assurance, and the transaction was not a sham.
The Tribunal held that the appeal challenging the rejection of 12AB registration has become infructuous as fresh registration was granted. For the 80G approval, it was remanded to the CIT(E) to consider granting approval, as the rejection was consequential to the 12AB rejection.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by failing to frame a proper draft assessment order as required by Section 144C(1) of the Act. The AO effectively passed final assessment orders in the guise of draft orders, rendering them invalid.
The Tribunal held that the penalties cannot survive as the additions on which they were based have been set aside for de novo adjudication. Therefore, the penalty orders are set aside, and fresh proceedings can be initiated if warranted after the fresh assessment.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary evidence, submissions, and explanations in the prescribed manner.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made a decision without calling for comments from the AO on serious allegations made by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted an additional ground regarding the non-existence of the assessee entity. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeals on technical grounds of delay, despite issuing notices for submissions, was incorrect. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeals on technical grounds of delay, despite issuing notices for submissions, was incorrect. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by failing to frame a proper draft assessment order as required by Section 144C(1) of the Act. The AO effectively passed final assessment orders in the guise of draft orders, rendering them invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the share transactions. Following a coordinate bench decision in an identical case, the Tribunal deleted the additions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee within a reasonable time, despite requests. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the assessee had provided extensive documentary evidence for the purchases, including quantitative reconciliation, banking records, and supplier confirmations. The Revenue failed to provide specific evidence to disprove the genuineness of the transactions or the corresponding exports.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Rule 8D without proper satisfaction and without considering the assessee's suo moto disallowance. Certain contentions regarding the computation of disallowance under Rule 8D were also considered.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Rule 8D without proper satisfaction and without considering the assessee's suo moto disallowance. Certain contentions regarding the computation of disallowance under Rule 8D were also considered.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Rule 8D without proper satisfaction and without considering the assessee's suo moto disallowance. Certain contentions regarding the computation of disallowance under Rule 8D were also considered.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee before completion. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional grounds concerning the jurisdictional aspect of the reassessment proceedings. The appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after considering the assessee's submissions and the jurisdictional issues.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to furnish the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee within a reasonable time, despite requests. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, was also held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's personal and professional difficulties leading to non-compliance, decided to restore the matter back to the file of the AO. The assessee will be given reasonable opportunities to present submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the share transactions. Following a coordinate bench decision in an identical case, the Tribunal deleted the additions.
The assessee's authorized representative expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal as the trust was no longer aggrieved. The Revenue did not object to this request.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that a registered agreement for sale, coupled with other evidence like payment and possession, is sufficient for claiming exemption under Section 54. The Tribunal also noted the principle of consistency, as a similar claim for the co-owner was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to raise the claim of non-taxability of receipts as royalty income before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal reasoned that tax can only be collected by authority of law (Article 265 of the Constitution of India), and if a receipt is not in the nature of income, it cannot be taxed, even if mistakenly offered as income due to lack of clarity or ignorance of law. The Tribunal cited decisions like Goetze (India) Ltd. and CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. to support the principle that a fresh claim can be raised before appellate authorities, even against a Section 143(1) intimation without adjustment. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee granted limited resale rights without copyright transfer and that similar receipts in subsequent years were accepted as non-royalty. However, since the issue was not factually examined at any stage, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the software products were copyrighted articles without transfer of copyright. If found to be so, the receipts would not be treated as royalty and no addition would be made. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The issue of taxability of receipts as royalty was expressly left undecided pending factual examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deeming the assessment order void due to the non-issuance of the mandatory Section 143(2) notice. The assessment was not a best judgment assessment under Section 144, and thus, the precedents relied upon by the Revenue were distinguishable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because a claim made by the assessee was disallowed. Since the assessee had made full disclosures and acted bona fide based on professional certification, there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that entertainment tax incentive retained by the assessee was not a revenue receipt and upheld the deletion of disallowance of depreciation. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year.
The Tribunal held that Section 43CA is not applicable to transactions prior to April 1, 2014. It also noted that the stamp duty valuation did not consider the land reservation and that the AO had not referred the matter to a Valuation Officer.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions solely based on third-party statements and seized material without independent corroboration or an opportunity for the assessee to cross-examine. The additions were unsustainable as the assessee denied paying any on-money.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions solely based on third-party statements and seized material without independent corroboration or an opportunity for the assessee to cross-examine. The additions were unsustainable as the assessee denied paying any on-money.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions solely based on third-party statements and seized material without independent corroboration or an opportunity for the assessee to cross-examine. The additions were unsustainable as the assessee denied paying any on-money.
The Tribunal held that the rental income should be treated as 'Income from House Property' and not 'Profits and Gains from Business'. However, it allowed the set-off of short-term capital gains arising from the sale of a depreciable asset against brought forward long-term capital losses.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that she was not granted a reasonable opportunity to furnish supporting documents during the assessment. The Tribunal set aside the addition and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The issues were remanded back for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that receipts from feeder vessels are eligible for exemption under Article 8 of the India-Germany DTAA, following consistent past decisions of the ITAT and High Court. Therefore, such income is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 69, finding the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of purchases and sales. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance due to the AO's failure to record mandatory dissatisfaction.
The Tribunal restored grounds related to business promotion expenses, common expenses, and additional depreciation to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing the interest of substantial justice. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned.
The Tribunal noted that the requirement of DIN in assessment orders was subsequently amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2026, making such orders valid even without a DIN if referenced by number. Therefore, the matter needed to be revisited by the CIT(A) on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO based solely on WhatsApp chats and third-party statements without corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination was not sustainable. The assessee's business was in cosmetics, not jewelry as suggested by the chats.