Loading ITAT cases…
280 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already taxed the entire cash flow from the seized documents in the hands of Prakash M. Sanghvi, preventing double taxation. The additions made in the hands of the present assessees were deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already taxed the entire cash flow from the seized documents in the hands of Prakash M. Sanghvi, preventing double taxation. The additions made in the hands of the present assessees were deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to substantiate their claims of fabricated documents and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of sales transactions. The Tribunal also noted that treating sales realization as unexplained credit would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already taxed the entire cash flow from the seized documents in the hands of Prakash M. Sanghvi, preventing double taxation. The additions made in the hands of the present assessees were deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal held that due to the ignorance of the trustees and inadvertent non-compliance with the requisite details within the stipulated time before the CIT(E), the matter should be remanded. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that they actually run an educational institute, as reflected in their audit report. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration of the applications. The CIT(E) was directed to pass an order taking into account the evidence filed by the applicant trusts and to provide the applicant trusts with an opportunity of hearing, following the principles of natural justice. Consequently, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) did not err in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,90,85,522/-. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide any evidence that the commission payment was made solely to avoid Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT). Conversely, the assessee presented substantial evidence demonstrating the services rendered by Shri Girish Chovatia and the benefits derived by the company. This evidence included the director's shareholding (32.78%), his position as one of six directors, and the fact that not all directors received commission. The Tribunal also noted that the commission paid was a relatively small percentage of the company's book profit and that the director had declared significant income and paid substantial tax. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s reliance on the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17, which held that commission paid for actual services rendered is an allowable business expenditure under Section 36(1)(ii) and cannot be disallowed merely on the presumption of tax avoidance. The AO's reliance on Dalal and Broacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. was considered factually distinguishable. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) failed to consider the evidence filed by the applicant trust and also the additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to consider the evidence filed by the applicant trust and that the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition. The bank account belonged to M/s. Greendiam Exim Pvt. Ltd., and a similar addition for the same cash deposit was made and deleted in the hands of the company, preventing double taxation. The Assessing Officer failed to provide documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company's status was 'strike off' and it had not been revived. As per the Companies Act, a dissolved company ceases to operate, except for settling liabilities. Since the company was dissolved, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was liable to be obliterated because the Assessing Officer failed to specify in the notice under Section 274 whether the penalty was proposed for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the investment in shares was adequately substantiated and allowed the appeal on this ground. Regarding the gift, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the relationship with the donor and sustained the addition, however, later on merits, it held that revenue authorities failed to appreciate the issue and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the deduction of interest expenses treated as business activity.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was a procedural lapse and not a deliberate or mala fide act, and it did not cause prejudice to the revenue. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the exemption under Section 11 should not be denied solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form 10B when other conditions were met.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had not considered the evidence filed by the applicant trust. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration of the application and the evidence submitted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider the evidence filed by the applicant trust. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application and to pass an order taking into account the evidence, while also providing an opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had failed to consider the documents already filed by the appellant with the Form 10AB application. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for proper verification of the submitted details, fresh adjudication of the applications under Section 12AB and Section 80G, and to ensure the appellant is provided an opportunity of hearing based on the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) had failed to consider the evidence submitted by the applicant trust. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, with instructions to take into account all evidences and ensure the applicant is provided an opportunity of hearing, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to consider the evidence submitted by the applicant and did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not considered the evidence filed by the applicant trust. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, ensuring the applicant is given an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not considered the evidence filed by the applicant. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application and evidence, ensuring principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and did not consider the documents filed. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The manner of issuing notices and subsequent rejection indicated a lack of effective service.
The tribunal took the withdrawal application on record and allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere. The CIT(A) had correctly determined the ALP by reducing the TPO's upward adjustment, acknowledging that the adjustment should apply only to specific product sales.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was set aside for de-novo assessment. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted, with a direction to consider penalty proceedings at the time of passing the fresh assessment order.
The Tribunal held that since no valid intimation under section 143(1) was served on the assessee (due to lack of DIN and expiry of time limits), any subsequent rectification under section 154 based on it was invalid. Therefore, the additions made by the CPC were liable to be deleted and the refund claimed was to be allowed for AY 2021-22.
The ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) to reconsider the application for condonation of delay, especially considering a new affidavit from the assessee, the relatively small delay, and the potential for grave injustice. If the delay is condoned, the CIT(A) is directed to hear the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that since no valid intimation under section 143(1) was served on the assessee (due to lack of DIN and expiry of time limits), any subsequent rectification under section 154 based on it was invalid. Therefore, the additions made by the CPC were liable to be deleted and the refund claimed was to be allowed for AY 2021-22.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the identity of the depositor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the purported lender. Due to the lack of evidence, the additions were confirmed as undisclosed investments.
The Tribunal held that the objects of the assessee trust were for the benefit of its members and residents of the society, not for the general public. Therefore, it was not eligible for registration under Section 12AB of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought to admit additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, which included PAN card, bank statements, electricity bills, passport of Shri Devang Shah, and his notarized affidavits for the relevant assessment years. The assessee argued that these documents were vital for a fair and judicious order and cited various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court, to support the admission of additional evidence. The Tribunal, in the interest of the principle of natural justice and to enable a more satisfactory pronouncement, decided to set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the case on merits after taking into account the additional documents produced by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer appeared to have not allowed the full credit of TDS as per 26AS. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to consider the receipts for the last two years and allow credit of TDS as per the records.
The Tribunal found that the transactions with M/s. Nitesh Fruit Company were legitimate business transactions, properly declared by the assessee, and supported by documentary evidence. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition under Section 69C without considering these documents. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,99,00,000/- was made on the basis of documents and statements obtained in a third-party search in 2012-13, which were not found during the search conducted on the assessee on 30.10.2018. It was also undisputed that the assessment for AY 2013-14 had already been completed under section 143(3) on 22.02.2016 and stood unabated. The Tribunal reiterated the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., stating that for completed/unabated assessments, additions under section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search conducted under section 132 in the assessee's case. Since the relied-upon materials were not found during the assessee's search, the addition was outside the permissible scope of section 153A. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. The cross-objection regarding jurisdiction was not adjudicated as the issue on merits was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution despite the assessee seeking an adjournment. The Tribunal found it fit to set aside the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the case on merits, allowing the assessee to raise additional grounds.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that depreciation was wrongly disallowed and requested an opportunity to refer the matter back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for rectification. The Tribunal agreed and referred the matter to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought to admit additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, which included PAN card, bank statements, electricity bills, passport of Shri Devang Shah, and his notarized affidavits for the relevant assessment years. The assessee argued that these documents were vital for a fair and judicious order and cited various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court, to support the admission of additional evidence. The Tribunal, in the interest of the principle of natural justice and to enable a more satisfactory pronouncement, decided to set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the case on merits after taking into account the additional documents produced by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
For AY 2010-11, the ITAT deleted the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of share capital. The Tribunal held that since the share capital contribution by the directors was not disputed, any dissatisfaction should have led to additions in the hands of the shareholders, not the company, especially in its first year. The legal grounds were not adjudicated as the addition was deleted on merits. For AY 2011-12, the ITAT allowed the appeal partly. The disallowance of Rs. 64,000/- for expenses on increase in authorized share capital was deleted as it was considered a capital expenditure. The addition of Rs. 35,51,544/- on account of cash deposits was set aside to the AO for verification of source. The addition of Rs. 10,25,731/- as unexplained investment was deleted as it was found to be a loan. For AY 2012-13, the ITAT allowed the appeal partly. The disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of Director's remuneration was deleted as Section 194J(1)(ba) was not applicable for payments made before its effective date. The disallowance of miscellaneous expenses was restricted to 10% from 20%. The legal ground was dismissed as not pressed. For AY 2013-14, the ITAT allowed the appeal partly. Grounds 1 and 3 were decided in line with AY 2012-13. For Ground 2 concerning Director's remuneration, the matter was set aside to the AO to verify if TDS was made under Section 192. If so, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194J(1)(ba) would be required. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all details and documents.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of appeals as requested by the assessee, subject to certain conditions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The dismissal was primarily due to the appeal being time-barred by 184 days and the failure of the assessee to rectify the notified defects, including incorrect filling of dates and non-uploading of condonation petitions.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of appeals as requested by the assessee, subject to certain conditions.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of appeals as requested by the assessee, subject to certain conditions.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee Trust failed to produce the Form 10AB filed before the CIT(Exemption). However, to meet the ends of justice, the order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) with a cost of Rs. 5000/- imposed on the Assessee Trust.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee, noting that the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the VSV Scheme benefits were not availed.
The Tribunal found that the primary adjudication of the grounds of appeal had not been taken by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for conducting the assessment de novo.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case. The property was held by a partnership firm and mortgaged with a bank which sold it for recovery of dues.
The Tribunal held that the assessee-trust failed to submit requisite details despite notices. However, to serve the interests of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration of the application.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's charitable objects were restricted to a particular religious community or caste. Consequently, Section 13(1)(b) of the Act would be applicable, making the assessee ineligible for exemption under Section 11, and thus ineligible for registration under Section 12A.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of appeals as requested by the assessee, subject to certain conditions.