Loading ITAT cases…
295 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in ITA No. 44/Ahd/2025 (AY 2018-19) on the ground that the reassessment proceedings were liable to be deleted. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's original return for AY 2018-19, filed on 28-04-2022, claimed a current year loss of Rs. 52,86,454/- belatedly, making it ineligible for set-off under Section 139(3). However, the Tribunal also observed that this loss was not claimed by filing the return within the time prescribed by Section 139(1) or Section 147. Therefore, there was no escapement of income, and the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Consequently, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed, and remaining grounds did not require further adjudication. The Tribunal did not provide specific findings on the other grounds raised for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19, as the appeal for AY 2018-19 was allowed on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction/escapement of income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of non-appearance without discussing the grounds of appeal on merits. The Tribunal observed that the first notice from the CIT(A) was issued during the pandemic period, and subsequent notices were issued in quick succession, not providing the assessee an effective opportunity to present their case on merits. Considering the quantum of addition and the lack of effective opportunity, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the case to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be bona fide, relating to non-receipt of notices due to email miscommunication in faceless proceedings. Regarding the grounds of appeal, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided complete details of invoices and parties from whom contractual income was earned, and this income was offered to tax under Section 44AD. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not conduct any independent inquiry to rebut the veracity of the evidence. Similarly, for the wedding gifts, the assessee provided a complete list of donors, and the AO did not provide specific findings to rebut this evidence. The Tribunal held that receiving gifts prior to the marriage date, when a complete list of donors was submitted and no specific defects were pointed out, did not lead to the conclusion that the gifts were not genuine. Therefore, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte as notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, violating natural justice. It ruled that the CIT(A) should have examined the assessee's eligibility for Section 80P deduction before dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-payment of advance tax. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment and the first appellate order were passed ex parte, violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate on all grounds. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to medical incapacity and the accountant's resignation. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by making additions on issues not covered by the original notice, without obtaining prior approval to convert the case to complete scrutiny. Relying on CBDT guidelines and a previous coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment strictly within the parameters of the limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to submit necessary details before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). However, to provide an opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, with directions for the assessee to provide all documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte as notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, violating natural justice. It ruled that the CIT(A) should have examined the assessee's eligibility for Section 80P deduction before dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-payment of advance tax. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income from staff loans is business income, following previous ITAT decisions. For capital grants, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication as per prior ITAT directions. The penalty appeal was allowed as the quantum issue was not yet decided.
The Tribunal held that interest income from staff loans is business income, following previous ITAT decisions. For capital grants, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication as per prior ITAT directions. The penalty appeal was allowed as the quantum issue was not yet decided.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to establish a real and proximate connection between borrowed funds and amounts advanced. While dismissing the appeal on merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rebate under section 87A is not allowable on tax arising from special rate incomes like STCG under section 111A, even under the new tax regime. This is because the computation under section 115BAC(1A) is subject to Chapter XII, which includes special rate incomes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue on merits as the appeal was dismissed on limitation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to comply without unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue on merits as the appeal was dismissed on limitation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to comply without unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's earlier application for registration was not for reasons specified in Para 4.1 of CBDT Circular No. 7/2024, and therefore, the subsequent application filed within the extended time was rightly held as non-maintainable. Consequently, the denial of registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G were upheld.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by making additions on issues not covered by the original notice, without obtaining prior approval to convert the case to complete scrutiny. Relying on CBDT guidelines and a previous coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment strictly within the parameters of the limited scrutiny.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond three years and the alleged escaped income was below the prescribed limit for reopening after three years. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was bad in law. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had suffered losses which were not claimed within the stipulated time.
The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. The assessee's counsel undertook to provide all necessary documents to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to grant one more opportunity for hearing and pass orders.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish a direct link between the assessee and the alleged price manipulation. The addition was based on general findings and conjecture, without specific incriminating material against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that cash withdrawals from disclosed bank accounts, which are reflected in the books of account and explained by the assessee, cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The burden is on the revenue to prove that such withdrawals were not for business purposes or were diverted for unaccounted activities, which was not demonstrated in this case. The assessee had provided documentation and a plausible explanation for the transactions related to his CSC operations.
The Tribunal noted that similar disallowances in the preceding assessment year were restricted to 25%. Considering this precedent and the partial substantiation of the business purpose, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 25% of the total expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's earlier application for registration was not for reasons specified in Para 4.1 of CBDT Circular No. 7/2024, and therefore, the subsequent application filed within the extended time was rightly held as non-maintainable. Consequently, the denial of registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G were upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 29 days, imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(E), and directed the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under section 69A was unsustainable. The evidence submitted by the assessee clearly showed that the investment was funded by foreign-earned income remitted through legitimate banking channels into their jointly held NRE account.
The Tribunal found that while the purchases were likely bogus, the AO did not conduct proper inquiries regarding GST implications and cash trails. The matter was remanded to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application solely based on the community affiliation without a deeper inquiry into whether the activities were exclusionary. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income from staff loans is business income, following previous ITAT decisions. For capital grants, the issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication as per prior ITAT directions. The penalty appeal was allowed as the quantum issue was not yet decided.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the case under Section 148 was valid as the entity name change was on record and the approving authority had applied its mind. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had disclosed the transactions and paid taxes, and the Revenue failed to provide evidence of accommodation entries for LTCG, STCG, and commission.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s denial of registration under section 80G(5) was arbitrary and the impugned order was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was that the CIT(E) denied registration without verifying the accounts and despite the assessee's submission that no expenditure was incurred towards religious activities. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) reproduced the assessee's submissions but failed to conduct a proper verification. The ratio decidendi is that denial of registration under section 80G(5) without proper verification of accounts and evidence, especially when the assessee claims no expenditure on religious activities, is unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the order and directed the CIT(E) to consider the materials on record and grant registration under section 80G(5), providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed for AY 2012-13 was without jurisdiction as the sale transaction clearly pertained to AY 2011-12 based on the sale deed dated 18.08.2010. The CIT(A) overlooked this crucial factual point. The additions made by the AO were therefore rendered unsustainable.
The Tribunal found no justification in treating the cash deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- during demonetisation as unexplained, considering it represented accumulated savings. The addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 69A was deleted. The ground regarding HRA and Conveyance Allowance was not pressed by the assessee, and the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal against the quantum addition should be restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte and the additions appeared to be made without proper reconciliation of deposits and withdrawals. The assessee, being a first-time businessman, was unaware of the proceedings and was denied relief by the CIT(A) solely on technical grounds without examining the facts. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to afford the assessee an opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence, considering all relevant facts including business receipts, fund flow, and submissions. Consequently, the appeal relating to the levy of penalty under Section 271AAC(1) was also restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, as it was consequential to the quantum additions. The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the error in selecting the wrong sub-clause was a technical lapse and not an attempt to mislead. The assessee was not given an effective opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for statistical purposes. Regarding the quantum appeal (ITA No. 2218/Ahd/2024), the Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte and the additions appeared to be made without proper reconciliation of deposits and withdrawals. The assessee was denied relief by the CIT(A) solely on technical grounds. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence. The AO was directed to consider all relevant facts, including business receipts, fund flow, and submissions. Consequently, the penalty appeal (ITA No. 2219/Ahd/2024) was also restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, as it was consequential to the quantum additions.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's revisional order, finding that the principle of consistency was not applicable as the depreciation on goodwill was disallowed in the immediate preceding year, and no new facts justified its allowance in the current year. The AO's failure to disallow the claim without inquiry rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid due to vague and mechanical "reasons to believe," non-application of mind, and failure to verify crucial facts like the filing of the return and the timing of the property transaction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not effectively served with the notices, and the non-compliance was due to lack of service and knowledge, not willful default. Therefore, the imposition of penalty was unwarranted as the assessee had no opportunity to correct the default.
The Tribunal held that the land in question was agricultural land and not a capital asset as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, following a coordinate bench decision concerning a co-owner of the same property. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a non-existent entity, after the Assessing Officer was duly informed of the amalgamation, is void ab initio and not a procedural error curable under Section 292B of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the technical ground that no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee's premises. The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in K. Krishnamurthy vs. DCIT and Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., clarified that 'found in the course of search' has a wide amplitude and includes materials gathered from third parties, further investigations, or inquiries pursuant to the search. The AO had relied on digital data seized from the assessee, evidence from searches by the Kolkata Directorate against entry operators, statements of entry operators, and inquiry reports obtained under Section 131. These were considered materials found in the course of search. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that additions were made without incriminating material was reversed. However, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not examined the merits of the additions. The assessee contended that loans and advances were repaid, which would negate the classification as accommodation entries. This aspect was not verified by the AO or Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to verify the repayment of loans and advances and then pass an appropriate order.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions solely on the technical ground that no incriminating material was found during the search at the assessee's premises. The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in K. Krishnamurthy vs. DCIT and Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., clarified that 'found in the course of search' has a wide amplitude and includes materials gathered from third parties, further investigations, or inquiries pursuant to the search. The AO had relied on digital data seized from the assessee, evidence from searches by the Kolkata Directorate against entry operators, statements of entry operators, and inquiry reports obtained under Section 131. These were considered materials found in the course of search. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that additions were made without incriminating material was reversed. However, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not examined the merits of the additions. The assessee contended that loans and advances were repaid, which would negate the classification as accommodation entries. This aspect was not verified by the AO or Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to verify the repayment of loans and advances and then pass an appropriate order.
The Tribunal held that for a payment to be taxed as a perquisite, the employee must have a vested right in the amount. Since the assessee had no vested right in the ₹20,00,000/- in AY 2018-19 and it would be taxed in future years upon receipt, taxing it in the current year would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible.
The Tribunal noted that the primary adjudication of the grounds of appeal was not done by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de-novo assessment, with a direction for the assessee to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices.
The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained investment in land was unsustainable as a portion of the payment was made in a prior year and the source was explained by partner capital. The addition for partners' capital was also deemed unjustified as the assessee established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the primary adjudication of the grounds of appeal was not done by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de-novo assessment, with a direction for the assessee to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid in law. This invalidity stemmed from the fact that the reopening of the assessment was initiated beyond the three-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year (2018-19). As per Section 151(ii) of the Act, for reopening beyond three years, the approval must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director or Chief Commissioner or Director General. In this case, the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), which was not the specified authority for reopening beyond three years. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Makhija, the Bombay High Court in Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd., and the jurisdictional ITAT in Dalpat Baraiya and Nayanaben Vijaykumar Lakum, which consistently held that sanction obtained from a wrong specified authority renders the entire reopening proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed. Since the reassessment order itself was invalid, any revision proceedings initiated against such an invalid order are unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned revision order passed by the PCIT was quashed. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by its own decision in the assessee's case for Assessment Year 2013-14. The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of the claim of Rs. 9,61,71,791/- under Section 43B of the Act, agreeing with the reasoning that mine closure expenses do not fall under the categories of tax, duty, cess, or fee as stipulated in Section 43B. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's alternate claim for the entire provision created for Mine Closure expenses amounting to Rs. 80,10,05,553/-. The reasoning was that this provision represented an ascertained liability for which the assessee was required to make a provision as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Coal, and it should be allowed as an expense. The AO was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 9,61,71,791/- and allow the provision of Rs. 80,10,05,553/-. The ratio decidendi is that while expenses claimed under Section 43B must strictly adhere to its specified categories, provisions for ascertained liabilities, even if not falling under Section 43B, can be allowed as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) if they are a business necessity and calculated on a scientific basis.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the entire sale consideration as capital gains without considering the cost of acquisition and indexation. Since the assessee did not produce these details before the lower authorities, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was summarily dismissed by the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel requested an opportunity for fresh compliances before the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no prejudice to the revenue in remanding the matter.