Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is engaged in regular business activities, the cash deposits should be assessed at the Gross Profit rate of 6%. Regarding the assessment under section 115BBE, the Tribunal noted that the provision applies only to transactions done on or after 01.04.2017, directing the assessee to be assessed under normal provisions.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee is regularly engaged in business and the deposits represent business receipts. Considering the net profit rate in earlier years was below 2%, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a net profit rate of 3% on the turnover of Rs. 539.79 Lacs and re-compute the income.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's adjournment request and dismissed the appeal. This was because no additions were made based on the seized material, and the assessment was considered unabated at the time of the search.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT-DR sought an adjournment for these old appeals. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's side provided assistance by highlighting that the substantive additions had been settled earlier, a fact not denied by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to decline the adjournment request and the appeals.
The Tribunal considered the facts, including the verification of entries, contract notes, bank statements, and affidavits from involved parties. It noted that the addition was already deleted in another ground of appeal, and the transactions were settled in other parties' cases.
The Tribunal noted that no additions were made based on the seized material. The Learned CIT-DR sought an adjournment to obtain a status report from field authorities.
The Department representative had no objection to the withdrawal prayer. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Department representative had no objection to the withdrawal prayer. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on an approval from the prescribed authority which stated 'yes, I am satisfied'. Citing the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal held that such an approval vitiates the entire reopening.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 24,90,250/- as unexplained cash deposits is not sustainable. The reasoning is that the very issue of profit rate addition on these cash deposits had been settled in the first round of appeal, where the addition of Rs. 1,17,012/- was deleted by a coordinate bench. The Tribunal found no reason to concur with the Revenue's stand that the entire cash deposit addition could be revived based on the same observations that led to the deletion of the profit element. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's ground for deletion of the impugned addition in its entirety. The operative direction is the deletion of the impugned addition. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a small artisan, was not required to maintain elaborate books. The loan of Rs. 8.16 Lacs was admittedly utilized in business, and the assessee had no other source of income. Therefore, the deposits were considered business receipts. The return filed on technical grounds was directed to be accepted, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is a directory rather than a mandatory provision. Since the assessee filed the report before the processing under Section 143(1), they are eligible for Section 11 exemption.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision directions for Kumkum Saxena were unsustainable as they went beyond the scope of 'limited' scrutiny concerning cash deposits, restoring the issue of long-term capital gain. For Gopal Saxena, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed inquiries regarding his cash deposits and the sale of immovable property, and these facts were not rebutted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s decision was consistent with a prior ruling in the assessee's own case for a preceding year concerning a similar deletion of deemed dividend. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request for an adjournment, finding no distinction in facts or law from the previous case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not concealed particulars of income and had disclosed them in Schedule No. 13 before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had disclosed both the interest income of Rs. 1,97,809 and the insurance claim of Rs. 2,10,993 in the computation of income filed with the department along with the return of income. Since these issues had suffered taxation as per the documents produced, and penalty can only be levied under Section 271(1)(c) if the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be allowed. Consequently, the penalty levied against the assessee is liable to be deleted. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty accordingly.
The tribunal considered the withdrawal applications filed by the assessee. The department representative raised no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT-DR sought an adjournment for these old appeals. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's side provided assistance by highlighting that the substantive additions had been settled earlier, a fact not denied by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to decline the adjournment request and the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the issue needed to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A)/NFAC, with the assessee bearing the responsibility to prove the relevant facts.
The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT-DR sought an adjournment for these old appeals. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's side provided assistance by highlighting that the substantive additions had been settled earlier, a fact not denied by the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to decline the adjournment request and the appeals.
The assessee requested an adjournment to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The department representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly discharged the onus of establishing the source of cash payments by providing evidence of withdrawals from his partnership firm's capital account and relevant cash book pages. The addition was made on mere suspicion without concrete evidence, and Section 68 was not applicable as there was no unexplained cash credit.
The Tribunal observed that it was not conclusively determined if the persons engaged were actual experts or mere assistants. Considering the assessee offered a reasonable explanation, the penalty under Section 201(1) deserves to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of treating the share premium addition under Section 68 was unsustainable, especially when a specific provision under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) existed. It was also noted that the assessee had submitted a valuation report, and the department cannot make a new case in appellate proceedings.
The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal application. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
The Tribunal noted that bank credits and cash deposits represented sales turnover, supported by financial statements. It was held that cash deposits could not be separately added under Section 69A, especially when the assessee is primarily in business and lacks other income sources.
During the course of hearing, the assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The department representative had no objection to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal ordered accordingly.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had affirmed the Assessing Officer's action without ensuring compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires framing points of determination before adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a previous order of the co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 32/Agr./2021 had already reversed the PCIT's revision directions. Therefore, the Tribunal applied the principle 'sublato fundamento cadit opus', meaning when the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls, concluding that the second round of assessment lacked basis.
The addition of Rs.25 lacs is not sustainable as the Assessing Officer had accepted the explanation for this investment in the assessee's wife's case. The issue of Rs.18.05 lacs is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with the assessee required to plead and prove material facts.
The tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) for both assessment years. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the identity and genuineness of the alleged lender, Smt. Nidhi Verma, were not established. The unsecured loan was not routed through the lender's bank account, and the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support the creditworthiness of the impugned cash credits.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, subject to all just exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revision jurisdiction. The PCIT's direction was based on the premise that the source of cash deposits was not examined, but the assessment order itself indicated these deposits were treated as bogus sales.
The assessee has opted for the "Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2024" and has filed the necessary form and made full payment. The Department has no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence, which had a crucial bearing on the issues, should not have been rejected on technical grounds. Therefore, the issues were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the appeals and cross-objection. The Revenue's grounds of appeal challenged the deletion of additions made by the AO, citing failure to appreciate facts and discrepancies in the balance sheet.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty under section 271C was levied while the quantum appeals were still pending. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication along with the quantum appeals.
The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Revenue did not dispute the assessee's averments regarding opting for the settlement scheme.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2004-05, the addition was made without proper incriminating material, hence the Revenue's appeal failed and the assessee's cross-objection succeeded. For AY 2005-06 and AY 2008-09, the appeals were similarly dismissed as the lower authorities had not made additions based on seized/incriminating material.