Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The Supreme Court's decisions were relied upon, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, without deciding on the merits, set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(E)'s file for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated for the same transactions, which were already considered and allowed during scrutiny assessment, are not in accordance with law in the absence of fresh tangible material. The CIT(A)'s order allowing relief to the assessee was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for issuing the notice was granted by the PCIT, whereas it should have been by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, as more than three years had elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments in other cooperative banks, especially after the amendment to Section 80P(4), is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal also noted that a provision for NPA is not an allowable deduction. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to comply with the notices and provide necessary details, leading to the rejection of the registration application and cancellation of provisional registration by the CIT(E). However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be deprived of legitimate exemption due to an inadvertent error in claiming it under the wrong section. The CIT(A)'s order allowing exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee did not file a response to the notice u/s 148 was incorrect. Citing the Patna High Court decision in CIT vs. Nagendra Prasad, the Tribunal held that a notice u/s 143(2) was mandatory even if a delayed return was filed in response to a notice u/s 148.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the new projects undertaken by the assessee and had relied solely on a Settlement Commission order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the new projects undertaken by the assessee and had relied solely on a Settlement Commission order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the new projects undertaken by the assessee and had relied solely on a Settlement Commission order. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee was to file necessary documents.
The Tribunal observed that a bank certificate indicated a lower cash deposit amount than what was initially reported. Considering the facts and circumstances, and the possibility of error in the initial information, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have issued a show-cause notice before dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, as the dismissal violated principles of natural justice. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have issued a show-cause notice before dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, as the dismissal violated principles of natural justice. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim for expenses related to slum dwellers and additional consideration for project delays was not sufficiently substantiated. However, it also noted that the income determined by the CIT(A) was on the higher side. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-determine the income by applying an estimated net profit rate of 12% on gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have issued a show-cause notice before dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, as the dismissal violated principles of natural justice. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have issued a show-cause notice before dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, as the dismissal violated principles of natural justice. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given adequate opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities. The Tribunal set-aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked valid jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 for reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The Tribunal noted that the proper course of action should have been under Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding extension of limitation. The case was remitted to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given adequate opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities. The Tribunal set-aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to appear on multiple hearing dates before the CIT(A). However, considering the circumstances, including pandemic restrictions and the reasons provided in the affidavit for non-appearance, the Tribunal found sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal noted the assessment order was framed during the Covid-19 pandemic restriction period. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and remitted the issues back to the AO for a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E)'s rejection was partly based on an order of the Tribunal not being received. Since the Tribunal's order was presented before them, the issue of approval under Section 80G(5) was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide the registered sale deed to substantiate the claim of selling agricultural land. However, considering the circumstances and the agreement of sale filed, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to present details before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for de novo assessment proceedings. The JAO is directed to duly consider the documents submitted by the assessee before the Tribunal and decide the issue in accordance with law, after providing proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing justice-oriented approach and the interest of justice, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issues were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a justice-oriented approach over technicalities. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the AO and the CIT(A) on multiple occasions and did not file any written submissions. Given the consistent failure to pursue the appeal and the significant delay, the Tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred.
The Tribunal held that multiple notices seeking the same information constitute a single default. It confirmed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for the initial non-compliance and directed the deletion of the remaining Rs. 30,000/- levied for subsequent non-compliances, citing Section 273B of the Act.
The Tribunal held that if the agreement for purchase and substantial payment were made before the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) became applicable, the pre-amended provisions would govern. Under the pre-amended provisions, the section only applied to cases of no consideration, not inadequate consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantial agricultural income and salary, and considering the small family size, the claim of sufficient opening cash balance from past savings appeared genuine. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was proposed for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following precedent, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Third Member, concurring with the Judicial Member, held that the payments made for the use of IT infrastructure facility did not fall within the ambit of industrial royalty/equipment royalty. This was primarily because the expression 'use of industrial, commercial or scientific equipment' was excluded from the definition of royalty in Article 12(3)(a) of the India-Belgium Tax Treaty. Furthermore, the Third Member found that the language in Article 12(3)(a) of the India-Belgium Tax Treaty contained the word 'Plan' and not 'Plant', and that 'Plant' was a typographical error. Consequently, the payments made by the assessee for the use of IT infrastructure facility were not liable for TDS. The disallowance made by the AO/DRP was therefore deleted. The Third Member noted that the Accountant Member's conclusion was based on the word 'Plant' without appreciating that it was a typographical error and the correct word was 'Plan'. The appeal of the assessee was allowed in view of the majority opinion.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's reasons and the Department's no-objection, restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits. The assessee was given liberty to raise grounds and adduce evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the 180-day delay in filing the appeal. Citing a Bombay High Court ruling, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Considering the finalization of the APA agreement covering the disputed transactions, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request and dismissed the appeal as 'Withdrawn'.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of foreign investment in WOS-BC, USA, for both AY 2018-19 and AY 2020-21, should be treated as a business loss or expenditure. The Tribunal reasoned that the investment was made for commercial expediency to expand business activities, acquire a running business concern (LDC, USA), and increase export of goods and services, not for earning dividends or interest. The genuineness of the investment and subsequent business activities was supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee had successfully effected exports and earned revenue from services. Therefore, the claim was in the nature of a business loss, not a capital loss or bad debt. The CIT(A)'s findings were reversed. Regarding the Rs.99,23,830/- for AY 2018-19, the Tribunal held that it was received from LDC, USA, as an advance against supplies through banking channels, and the assessee had explained its nature and source. The addition under Section 68 and the invocation of Section 115BBE were deemed not called for. The CIT(A)'s finding on this issue was also reversed. The Tribunal expressly left undecided any grounds not pressed by the assessee (Grounds 4 and 5 for AY 2018-19).
The Tribunal held that the write-off of foreign investment in M/s. Brahm Corporation, USA (WOS-BC, USA) for AY 2018-19, amounting to Rs. 97,61,190/-, was a business loss. The Tribunal reasoned that the investment was made for commercial expediency to expand business activities and acquire a running concern, not for earning dividends or interest. This was supported by documentary evidence showing genuine business activity and subsequent export orders. The Tribunal relied on the judgments in CIT Vs. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. and Ace Designers Ltd. Vs. ACIT. Consequently, Ground No. 1 for AY 2018-19 was allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 99,23,830/- for AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found that the amount was received from LDC, USA, as an advance against supplies through banking channels, and the AO's addition was due to an inadvertent mistake. The identity of LDC, USA, was not in dispute, and the assessee had explained the nature and source of the funds. Therefore, no addition under Section 68 or Section 115BBE was warranted. Grounds 2 and 3 for AY 2018-19 were allowed. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal applied its reasoning from AY 2018-19, holding that the loss of Rs. 9,56,76,580/- from writing off foreign investment in WOS-BC, USA, was a business loss and not a capital loss. Ground 1 for AY 2020-21 was allowed. The operative direction was to delete the additions/disallowances.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the assessee was not properly served notices and did not get an opportunity to present their case, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal partially accepted the assessee's objection regarding the computation of adjustment for manufacturing segment, directing the TPO to use the adjusted RHQ cost. However, other objections related to RHQ charges and double adjustment were rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee remained absent and did not comply with notices. Citing previous judgments, including one involving the same assessee for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the legal issue raised in the additional ground regarding jurisdiction and also to decide the merits of the case afresh, including the issue of cross-examination, after necessary inquiry and a remand report if required.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing reasonable cause due to the pandemic and the assessee's health issues, and relying on Apex Court judgments. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(A) should have dealt with the appeal on merits, even in an ex-parte order.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The assessee had claimed deduction for amounts disallowed in preceding years but allowable in the current year, which the CIT(A) allowed.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia payment made voluntarily by the employer, as confirmed by a letter from the employer, falls outside the scope of Section 17(3)(iii) of the Act. Consequently, the additions made on this account were set aside.
The Tribunal held that due to insufficient notice, the assessee could not attend the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte order.