Loading ITAT cases…
290 orders · Page 4 of 6
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowances, relying on judicial precedents that foreign agents without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India did not necessitate TDS deduction. For sample charges, the CIT(A) considered the amendment to Section 9 by the Finance Act, 2010, was not yet in statute at the time of payment.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to substantiate its case after affording reasonable hearing.
The Tribunal observed that the sale deed date was wrongly considered by the AO, and the assessee's explanation was supported by an affidavit from their father. For the AY 2012-13 appeal, the Tribunal deleted the imputed addition and allowed the appeal. For the AY 2015-16 appeal, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, keeping all issues open.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the AO had properly examined the issues during the assessment proceedings, documented the facts, and applied his mind before accepting the assessee's claims. The Pr. CIT's view was found to be substituting his own opinion for a plausible view taken by the AO, which is not permissible for revision.
The Tribunal held that the fact of the shareholder's bank account transactions being owned up by Shri Ramesh Chand Garg and settled before ITSC was uncontroverted. Furthermore, the shareholder's own assessment was completed without any such addition.
The tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to afford the assessee another opportunity for hearing before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was negligent in responding to notices before the CIT(Appeals), the ex-parte order lacked substantial discussion on merits. Therefore, to provide a last opportunity and in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the case was reopened beyond 4 years without any allegation of failure to disclose material facts and without fresh tangible material. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., the reopening was considered invalid.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate the credits and that not all bank accounts belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the assessment was set aside to be framed de novo.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could not broaden the scope of the limited scrutiny assessment. The AO had duly examined the capital introduction, and the other issues were outside the original scope of scrutiny. Therefore, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate its case on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's net profit rate was better than previous years and a 12% estimation was not justified, especially when Section 44AD provides for a presumptive income of 8%. The AO was directed to estimate income at 6.5% of the declared turnover.
The Tribunal found the addition of undisclosed trading receipts to be on the higher side and reduced it to Rs. 10 Lacs. For expenses, the disallowance was directed to be re-computed at 5%.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case back for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case on merits before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the onus of proving the identity, capacity, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan creditors and the genuineness of the sundry creditor transactions. The AO had not established that the assessee introduced unaccounted income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the onus of proving the identity, capacity, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan creditor and the genuineness of the sundry creditor (director's remuneration). Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 were unabated and thus Section 153A proceedings were invalid. For AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19, the assessments were quashed due to mechanical approval under Section 153D and for AY 2017-18, due to the use of third-party seized material in Section 153A proceedings.
Considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The assessment was restored for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for de novo adjudication. The assessee is granted another opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, holding that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation. The notice under section 148 was issued after the prescribed limitation period for AY 2015-16.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim, noting that the bank statement showed receipts and payments to various persons, and there was no contrary finding. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal confirmed an addition of Rs. 4 Lacs, considering the benefit of past savings, and deleted the remaining addition. The assessee's income primarily derived from agricultural activities and maturity proceeds of fixed deposits of their mother-in-law.
The Tribunal noted that the case was selected for scrutiny to verify business expenses against commission receipts. The AO had made queries and accepted the assessee's explanations, choosing not to make additions. The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could not substitute his view for the AO's plausible view, especially when the AO's view was not unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment notices were issued beyond 6 years from the assessment year, making the assessment clearly time-barred. The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the legal ground raised by the assessees.
The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A), considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the facts presented by the lower authorities were undisputed and that the assessee had failed to prove the source of the cash deposited in undisclosed bank accounts. The fake nature of the agreements further supported the addition made.
The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) conceded that the assessee did not possess the necessary registration to claim the impugned accumulation. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the appeal but confirmed the actions of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay of 82 days, which was condoned. Considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the assessee's return of income, showing gross receipts of Rs. 24.61 Lacs and an expenditure of Rs. 24.70 Lacs resulting in a loss, was rejected without sound reasoning. However, the assessee also failed to substantiate its claim. Therefore, the Tribunal estimated the income at 10% of the bank credits.
The Tribunal, considering natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the AO had duly considered the survey material and accepted the assessee's explanation with due application of mind. The Pr.CIT's revision was deemed to be a fishing or roving inquiry, which is impermissible. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court and High Court decisions stating that if the AO has taken a plausible view, the Pr.CIT cannot substitute their own view unless the AO's view is unsustainable in law.
The CIT(A) found that the notice u/s 143(2) was issued after the filing of the return of income, which is a procedural defect. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon, the CIT(A) held the assessment to be illegal and void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal found that the reopening of assessment was based on allegations of unaccounted purchases/sales, but no such addition was made. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was made on accounted purchases, and there was no new tangible material for the AO to form a belief of escaped assessment.
The Tribunal opined that there was no sound basis to confirm the full addition, as the assessee's balance sheet showed a sufficient opening cash balance. However, to prevent revenue leakage, the addition was restricted to Rs. 1 Lac, taxable at the normal rate of tax.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted as the expenditure was not claimed by the assessee. For investments, additions were deleted as the transactions were either admitted before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) or lacked corroborative evidence and were based on mere notings. Gifts of shares were not taxed as the relevant section was not applicable for the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the WIP addition was not justified as the assessee had already revised WIP for AY 2010-11 and it was accepted. The addition of estimated profit on WIP was considered double taxation as the assessee followed a consistent method of accounting. The classification of the flat sale as business income was also deemed incorrect, as it was part of fixed assets and gains were assessable as capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and accepted a plausible view. The Pr. CIT's attempt to make further inquiries was considered a fishing or roving inquiry, which is impermissible. The revision order was found to be unjustified.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the CIT(A)'s view that adequate opportunities were given, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which was accepted by the department. The Departmental Representative had no objection.
The Tribunal held that the retrospective grant of registration under Section 12AA, coupled with the second proviso to Section 12A(2), allowed the assessee to claim exemption under Section 11 for the assessment years where appeal proceedings were pending on the date of registration. The payment of education extension services to another charitable institution was also considered a valid application of income.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable in law. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 644 (SC), which categorically held that Section 271C does not impose a penalty for the default of not depositing TDS deducted to the government account. The Court analyzed Section 271C(1)(a) and (b), and Section 201(1A) and Section 276B. It was held that Section 271C(1)(a) pertains to the failure to *deduct* tax at source, while the failure to *pay* the deducted tax falls under Section 271C(1)(b) or attracts prosecution under Section 276B. The Tribunal noted that Section 201(1A) provides for interest on belated remittance of TDS, and Section 276B deals with prosecution for failure to pay. The CBDT Circular No. 551 dated 23.01.1998 was also discussed, clarifying that Section 271C was introduced for failure to deduct, while failure to pay attracts prosecution. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that a mere delay in remitting TDS after deduction does not attract penalty under Section 271C. The penalty of Rs. 14,62,179/- was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 15,45,867/- on account of investment in fixed assets was without basis and directed its deletion. The reasoning was that the entire amount was reflected in the assessee's audited balance sheet. The Tribunal emphasized that any figure appearing in the financial results, particularly the balance sheet, is duly accounted for in the assessee's books. The balance sheet reflects assets and their sources, meaning an item in the balance sheet cannot be from an undisclosed source. The Tribunal found the AO's action of treating balance sheet items as from undisclosed sources as a "gross lack of knowledge of accounting." Consequently, the additions of Rs. 3,02,166/- and Rs. 12,43,701/- were directed to be deleted. Regarding the Section 80C deduction of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the Tribunal, applying the same reasoning as for the fixed assets, found no merit in the disallowance and directed the AO to allow the claim. The appeal was allowed in these terms.