Loading ITAT cases…
214 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition as the assessee had already declared net agricultural income, implying expenditure was accounted for. The Tribunal noted that similar relief was granted to the assessee's brother.
The Tribunal held that provisions of Section 13 of the Act can only be invoked at the time of assessment, not during the grant of registration under Section 12A. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have invoked Section 153C instead of Section 147, as the documents found pertained to the assessee. Furthermore, the documents were not considered incriminating. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was due to technical issues and should not deny the substantive claim of exemption under section 11. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) erred in admitting the alternate claim under section 10(23C)(iiiad) without giving the AO an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not properly considered the evidence submitted by the assessee regarding cash deposits, share capital, and loans. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de-novo assessment to allow for proper verification of all evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have invoked Section 153C instead of Section 147, as the documents found pertained to the assessee. Furthermore, the documents were not considered incriminating. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. The AO failed to provide substantial evidence to disprove the genuineness of the share transactions and the claim for depreciation related to speculation business.
The Tribunal held that it is not mandatory for the audit report in Form 10B to be filed along with the return of income, as long as it is filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Since the audit report was filed within the due date, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 11(2) was admissible.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and present supporting evidence. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal decided to adjudicate the additional ground first as it went to the root of the AO's jurisdiction under Section 153C. The Tribunal noted that the AO initiated proceedings under Section 153C on 31.03.2018, and the seized documents were received by the AO in FY 2017-18 (relevant to AY 2018-19). Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh and other precedents, the Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C, the relevant date for computing the six-year period is the date of receipt of books of accounts or documents by the AO of the non-searched person, not the date of the original search. Therefore, proceedings could only be initiated for AY 2012-13 to AY 2017-18. The Tribunal further observed that the amended provision of Section 153A (w.e.f. 01.04.2017) allows initiation beyond six years up to ten years if escaped income is Rs. 50 lakhs or more. However, the addition made in AY 2011-12 was only Rs. 22.56 lakhs, failing this condition. Consequently, the AO had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C for AY 2011-12. The additional ground was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed. The other grounds were not adjudicated as the assessment order was quashed on a legal basis.
The Tribunal held that for loans advanced to AEs out of borrowed funds, the interest paid to banks must be recovered from the AE. If the interest charged is less than the interest paid, it indicates profit shifting. The Tribunal also found that the nature of forex transactions in the current year was similar to a previous year where losses were treated as business losses.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had found as a matter of fact that a substantive addition of Rs. 17 crores had already been made in the assessment of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. for AY 2016-17, based on the same impounded material, including the diary in question. The Ld. CIT(A) had also observed that the diary entries pertained to M/s. Rohtak Panipat Tollway Private Limited, a step-down subsidiary of Sadbhav Engineering Ltd., and were not related to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that confirming the addition in the assessee's hands would amount to double taxation of the same amount. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The issue of whether the entries were recorded in the assessee's books was rendered moot by the substantive addition in the company's case and the finding that the entries did not relate to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and in compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, dismissing it ex-parte in-limine. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for loans advanced to AEs out of borrowed funds, the interest paid to banks must be recovered from the AE. If the interest charged is less than the interest paid, it indicates profit shifting. The Tribunal also found that the forex transactions were hedging transactions, not speculative, based on previous rulings.