Loading ITAT cases…
945 orders · Page 3 of 19
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was initiated. This lack of specificity renders the penalty unsustainable on legal grounds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the genuineness of purchases with invoices, delivery challans, and bank payments. The non-payment of VAT by suppliers alone was insufficient to deem purchases bogus.
The Tribunal held that international connectivity charges, testing, visa-related expenses, and soft-skills/management training were not taxable in India. Receipts from standardized software were not royalty as no copyright was transferred, and lease rental adjustments were deleted. Interest under section 234B was deleted as tax was deductible at source.
The Tribunal held that procedural laws should facilitate justice and not deny it due to technicalities. It found that the error in Form 10B was a bona fide clerical mistake and that the assessee had made substantive compliance.
The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because additions were confirmed in quantum proceedings, without specific findings of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the issue involved interpretation of statutory provisions and accounting methods, and the assessee had a reasonable basis for its claim.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that goodwill is an eligible intangible asset for depreciation, following a previous ruling on the same issue. However, it remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide on the applicability of the 180-day rule for depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the donation was made when the institution had valid approval, and subsequent withdrawal of approval does not affect the deduction. The AO's disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the issue required fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's claim for exemption and ensure adherence to principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted to the AO for a de novo order.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had raised valid factual doubts regarding the date of payment. However, the assessee presented additional evidence to support its claim of payment on March 14, 2016. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of this new evidence.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment proceedings under the faceless assessment scheme was in order. However, due to new evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the Section 68 addition, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Section 14A disallowance was also restored for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening did not explicitly mention the specific entity (M/s Newera Vinimay Pvt Ltd) from which the assessee received funds. Due to this ambiguity and the lack of clarity on whether the taxed transaction was the same as the one forming the basis of reopening, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on cogent materials and duly endorsed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal also noted that the right of hearing does not necessarily include the right to cross-examine, and the burden of proof was on the assessee to explain the source of funds, which was not discharged.
The Tribunal held that the trust's activities were for the protection of investors and investor education, not for the benefit of defaulting trading members or NSE. The beneficiaries were identified as investors in the securities market, constituting a section of the public with a common interest. The Tribunal found no violation of section 2(15) or other provisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the outcome of the appeal for the previous assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was barred by limitation and fundamentally defective. It was also found that the appellant lacked the locus standi to file the appeal as the impugned order was not against him personally.
The Tribunal restored the application to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, following a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case. The CIT(E) was directed to decide afresh after considering documents and providing a hearing, and the assessee was directed to comply with notices.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions as the assessee provided sufficient evidence of discharge of liabilities and genuineness of loans. The Tribunal also found no prejudice caused to the Revenue by the admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish a specific nexus between the assessee and any alleged operator or accommodation-entry provider for the penny-stock transactions. Regarding interest expenditure, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion based on commercial expediency.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documentation substantiating the identity of the investors. However, the Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had relied on extensive investigation, incriminating statements, and the dubious pattern of bank transactions, indicating that the investors lacked genuine creditworthiness and business motive.
The Tribunal held that the trust's activities were for the protection of investors and investor education, not for the benefit of defaulting trading members or NSE. The beneficiaries were identified as investors in the securities market, constituting a section of the public with a common interest. The Tribunal found no violation of section 2(15) or other provisions.
The Tribunal held that the buy-back of own shares did not result in the receipt of 'property' under Section 56(2)(x). It also found that interest-free advances were made from surplus own funds and that the written-off loans arose from a regular lending business.
The Tribunal held that the 2016 agreement was a fresh transaction, and the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of prior payments being adjusted. The discrepancies in flat numbers and lack of clear contractual linkage from the earlier builder meant the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) were attracted.
The Tribunal held that sustaining the transfer-pricing adjustment in the current year would lead to double taxation if the same amount was offered to tax in the subsequent year. The AO was directed to delete the adjustment subject to verification of the write-back and taxability in AY 2023-24.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and held that the addition under Section 69 was not sustainable as the investment was made in FY 2014-15, not FY 2018-19. Stamp duty valuation alone is not sufficient for addition under Section 69.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a plausible claim based on judicial pronouncements, and merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on the abandoned Bharuch project is allowable as business expenditure. The mere capitalization of expenses as work-in-progress does not convert them into capital expenditure if the project did not materialize and no capital asset came into existence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the Assessing Officer/Joint Commissioner had not provided specific evidence to demonstrate a violation of Section 269SS, which requires a loan or deposit from another person above a certain threshold, accepted otherwise than through specified modes.
The Tribunal held that absence of expenditure does not automatically establish non-genuineness of charitable activities, citing Supreme Court precedents. The CIT's satisfaction should be based on the genuineness of objects and proposed activities, not solely on past expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to dispel the suspicion raised by the AO and establish the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found that the entire transaction of purchasing and selling shares of M/s. Kappac Pharma Limited appeared to be a colourable device to convert unaccounted money into fictitious exempt LTCG to evade taxes. The reasoning was based on several factors: (i) the purchase of shares with undisclosed money, subsequent declaration under IDS, 2016, legalization, refund, and payment by cheque, followed by dematerialization and sale at a significantly higher price, making the transaction appear antedated and colourable. (ii) The transaction failed the test of human probabilities, as no prudent person would invest heavily in a consistently loss-making company, especially when the assessee was a novice. (iii) The assessee failed to dispel the AO's suspicions and withheld the name of the real seller. (iv) The business model of M/s. Kappac Pharma Limited was examined and held by coordinate benches to be a provider of bogus exempt LTCG. (v) The onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction lay with the assessee, which she failed to discharge. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the assessment order passed by the AO was upheld. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, allowing some, dismissing others, and partly allowing some for statistical purposes. Specific issues like disallowance of license fee, depreciation, and domestic roaming charges were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law and void ab initio because the information originated from a search on a third party, necessitating proceedings under Section 153C. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed. Even on merits, the addition was deleted as the primary witness denied the transaction.
The Tribunal held that an allotment letter, when acted upon by making payments through banking channels, can be considered as an agreement to sell for the purpose of the proviso to Section 56(2)(x). Therefore, the stamp duty value on the date of the allotment letter should be considered.
The Tribunal held that adjudicating the penalty appeal while the underlying quantum proceedings are pending is premature. Therefore, the penalty matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum appeal is decided.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of the claim was not voluntary as it was made after the AO's detection. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to offer a bona fide explanation for concealment.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were indeed barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. The notice issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 was considered invalid.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued on April 4, 2022, for AY 2015-16, was barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment order and all proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, considering the circumstances of portal control, non-communication of orders, and interconnected issues. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)'s order contained facts and submissions unrelated to the present appeal, indicating a lack of proper consideration. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that determining the true nature of the Rs. 8,40,000/- as loan repayment instead of salary requires factual verification, which is beyond the scope of rectification under Section 154. The correction must originate from the deductor revising their TDS statement.
The Tribunal held that since more than three years had expired from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 should have been obtained from the PCCIT or CCIT as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. The approval by the PCIT was invalid, rendering the notice and subsequent proceedings bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, considering the circumstances of portal control, non-communication of orders, and interconnected issues. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the redevelopment agreement was executed by the society on behalf of its members, and the society merely held legal title to the land. Therefore, the capital gains tax liability could not be foisted upon the society.
The Tribunal considered the submission that the appeal was a duplicate and the Revenue did not dispute this. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition under section 69C could not be sustained solely on the non-response of vendors to notices or their alleged non-filing of returns. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases, considering the established manufacturing activity and accepted sales. The Tribunal found the estimation to be reasonable, taking into account potential savings from grey market procurement.
The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.
The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.
The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.
The Tribunal held that the seized material, while requiring an explanation, did not establish that the alleged investment was made in the specific assessment year under appeal. The attribution of the cash payment to the relevant financial year was based on an assumption rather than concrete evidence.