Loading ITAT cases…
192 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue No. 1 (Limitation): The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the assessment order being barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that a reference was made to FT&TR on 10.04.2019, and the assessee was informed of this reference. The assessee's counsel, after perusing the documentary evidence of the reference, had nothing further to say on the validity of the reference itself. The Tribunal noted that there was no specific provision requiring the assessee to be intimated of such references, and the Department was free to conduct inquiries. The finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessment was within the time limit was upheld. Issue No. 2 (Section 153A validity): The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the assessment under section 153A was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material. The specific reasoning for this rejection is detailed in paragraphs 7.00 to 7.26 of the full judgment, which are not fully provided here, but the ground was dismissed. Issues related to additions under Section 69A and 69C, and disallowance under Section 80G: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the upholding of additions made under Section 69A (investment in joint venture, unexplained money, cash withdrawn from bank accounts) and Section 69C (unaccounted expenditure), as well as the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G. These dismissals were based on the detailed findings recorded under specific issues (Issue No. 3, 7, 6, 9, and 8 respectively) in the full judgment. The operative direction for these issues was the dismissal of the assessee's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue No. 1 (Limitation): The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the assessment order being barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that a reference was made to FT&TR on 10.04.2019, and the assessee was informed of this reference. The assessee's counsel, after perusing the documentary evidence of the reference, had nothing further to say on the validity of the reference itself. The Tribunal noted that there was no specific provision requiring the assessee to be intimated of such references, and the Department was free to conduct inquiries. The finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessment was within the time limit was upheld. Issue No. 2 (Section 153A validity): The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the assessment under section 153A was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material. The specific reasoning for this rejection is detailed in paragraphs 7.00 to 7.26 of the full judgment, which are not fully provided here, but the ground was dismissed. Issues related to additions under Section 69A and 69C, and disallowance under Section 80G: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the upholding of additions made under Section 69A (investment in joint venture, unexplained money, cash withdrawn from bank accounts) and Section 69C (unaccounted expenditure), as well as the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G. These dismissals were based on the detailed findings recorded under specific issues (Issue No. 3, 7, 6, 9, and 8 respectively) in the full judgment. The operative direction for these issues was the dismissal of the assessee's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue No. 1 (Limitation): The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the assessment order being barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that a reference was made to FT&TR on 10.04.2019, and the assessee was informed of this reference. The assessee's counsel, after perusing the documentary evidence of the reference, had nothing further to say on the validity of the reference itself. The Tribunal noted that there was no specific provision requiring the assessee to be intimated of such references, and the Department was free to conduct inquiries. The finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessment was within the time limit was upheld. Issue No. 2 (Section 153A validity): The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the assessment under section 153A was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material. The specific reasoning for this rejection is detailed in paragraphs 7.00 to 7.26 of the full judgment, which are not fully provided here, but the ground was dismissed. Issues related to additions under Section 69A and 69C, and disallowance under Section 80G: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the upholding of additions made under Section 69A (investment in joint venture, unexplained money, cash withdrawn from bank accounts) and Section 69C (unaccounted expenditure), as well as the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G. These dismissals were based on the detailed findings recorded under specific issues (Issue No. 3, 7, 6, 9, and 8 respectively) in the full judgment. The operative direction for these issues was the dismissal of the assessee's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue No. 1 (Limitation): The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the assessment order being barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that a reference was made to FT&TR on 10.04.2019, and the assessee was informed of this reference. The assessee's counsel, after perusing the documentary evidence of the reference, had nothing further to say on the validity of the reference itself. The Tribunal noted that there was no specific provision requiring the assessee to be intimated of such references, and the Department was free to conduct inquiries. The finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessment was within the time limit was upheld. Issue No. 2 (Section 153A validity): The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the assessment under section 153A was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material. The specific reasoning for this rejection is detailed in paragraphs 7.00 to 7.26 of the full judgment, which are not fully provided here, but the ground was dismissed. Issues related to additions under Section 69A and 69C, and disallowance under Section 80G: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the upholding of additions made under Section 69A (investment in joint venture, unexplained money, cash withdrawn from bank accounts) and Section 69C (unaccounted expenditure), as well as the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G. These dismissals were based on the detailed findings recorded under specific issues (Issue No. 3, 7, 6, 9, and 8 respectively) in the full judgment. The operative direction for these issues was the dismissal of the assessee's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue No. 1 (Limitation): The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the assessment order being barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that a reference was made to FT&TR on 10.04.2019, and the assessee was informed of this reference. The assessee's counsel, after perusing the documentary evidence of the reference, had nothing further to say on the validity of the reference itself. The Tribunal noted that there was no specific provision requiring the assessee to be intimated of such references, and the Department was free to conduct inquiries. The finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessment was within the time limit was upheld. Issue No. 2 (Section 153A validity): The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the assessment under section 153A was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material. The specific reasoning for this rejection is detailed in paragraphs 7.00 to 7.26 of the full judgment, which are not fully provided here, but the ground was dismissed. Issues related to additions under Section 69A and 69C, and disallowance under Section 80G: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the upholding of additions made under Section 69A (investment in joint venture, unexplained money, cash withdrawn from bank accounts) and Section 69C (unaccounted expenditure), as well as the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G. These dismissals were based on the detailed findings recorded under specific issues (Issue No. 3, 7, 6, 9, and 8 respectively) in the full judgment. The operative direction for these issues was the dismissal of the assessee's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue No. 1 (Limitation): The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the assessment order being barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that a reference was made to FT&TR on 10.04.2019, and the assessee was informed of this reference. The assessee's counsel, after perusing the documentary evidence of the reference, had nothing further to say on the validity of the reference itself. The Tribunal noted that there was no specific provision requiring the assessee to be intimated of such references, and the Department was free to conduct inquiries. The finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessment was within the time limit was upheld. Issue No. 2 (Section 153A validity): The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the assessment under section 153A was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material. The specific reasoning for this rejection is detailed in paragraphs 7.00 to 7.26 of the full judgment, which are not fully provided here, but the ground was dismissed. Issues related to additions under Section 69A and 69C, and disallowance under Section 80G: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the upholding of additions made under Section 69A (investment in joint venture, unexplained money, cash withdrawn from bank accounts) and Section 69C (unaccounted expenditure), as well as the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G. These dismissals were based on the detailed findings recorded under specific issues (Issue No. 3, 7, 6, 9, and 8 respectively) in the full judgment. The operative direction for these issues was the dismissal of the assessee's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue No. 1 (Limitation): The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the assessment order being barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that a reference was made to FT&TR on 10.04.2019, and the assessee was informed of this reference. The assessee's counsel, after perusing the documentary evidence of the reference, had nothing further to say on the validity of the reference itself. The Tribunal noted that there was no specific provision requiring the assessee to be intimated of such references, and the Department was free to conduct inquiries. The finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessment was within the time limit was upheld. Issue No. 2 (Section 153A validity): The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the assessment under section 153A was invalid due to the absence of incriminating material. The specific reasoning for this rejection is detailed in paragraphs 7.00 to 7.26 of the full judgment, which are not fully provided here, but the ground was dismissed. Issues related to additions under Section 69A and 69C, and disallowance under Section 80G: The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds challenging the upholding of additions made under Section 69A (investment in joint venture, unexplained money, cash withdrawn from bank accounts) and Section 69C (unaccounted expenditure), as well as the disallowance of deduction under Section 80G. These dismissals were based on the detailed findings recorded under specific issues (Issue No. 3, 7, 6, 9, and 8 respectively) in the full judgment. The operative direction for these issues was the dismissal of the assessee's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were not genuine, based on surrounding circumstances and the assessee's failure to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the credit entry. The addition made by the AO was confirmed.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine sales through banking channels. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that suspicion alone cannot replace proof and that adding sales already offered to tax would amount to double taxation.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's arguments regarding the validity of the reopening and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also found no merit in the assessee's contentions on the merits of the addition, including the claim for indexed cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict additions based on extrapolation, finding it lacked reasonableness and co-relation. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to bank accounts of separately assessed entities.
The Tribunal found that the issue regarding transfer pricing adjustment in the manufacturing segment required fresh determination by the TPO/AO. This involved a detailed analysis of FAR parameters and verification of comparables, applying specific filters as per the rules.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case did not fall under the specific instances of mis-reporting of income as defined in Section 270A(9). The fault was related to the calculation of the deduction, not misrepresentation or suppression of facts.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the claim for exchange loss. The claim was not in accordance with AS-11 and ICDS-VI, which require recognition of exchange differences in each previous year. Therefore, the PCIT's order was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee, as mandated by the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a), is invalid and quashed the intimation. Consequently, other grounds raised on merits were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the consultancy expenses incurred for obtaining US-FDA approval were revenue in nature, as they were for regulatory compliance and did not create a capital asset or enduring benefit. The Tribunal also noted that similar expenses were allowed in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year.
The Tribunal confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained capital and unsecured loans, stating the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving genuineness and timing. The addition for interest income was also confirmed as it was admitted by the assessee and offered for taxation.
The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents and CBDT circulars, held that the return filed within the extended period permissible under Section 139(4) of the Act is a valid return. It concluded that the belated filing of Form 10B constitutes substantial compliance, and thus, the benefit of exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied on technical grounds. The Tribunal found the CPC was not justified in denying the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the reasons recorded were vague and lacked a live link to the escapement of income. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 293 days in filing the appeal, adopting a liberal and justice-oriented approach, citing Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy. On merits, the Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide substantive evidence at various stages. However, in the interest of substantial justice and following Supreme Court decisions in Guduthur Bros. v. ITO and Tin Box Company v. CIT, and Delhi High Court in CIT v. Jansampark Advertising and Marketing (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee a due opportunity to substantiate their claim with necessary documentary evidence. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee for non-compliance and to discourage a casual approach. The issue of whether the reassessment was time-barred or based on proper opinion formation was not explicitly decided on merits but implicitly addressed by restoring the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found no basis in the PCIT's order to conclude that the AO had failed to make necessary inquiries. The PCIT's order lacked discussion on the AO's inquiries and the assessee's replies, making it unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue authorities erred in confirming the addition as the sale deed indicated the property was purchased jointly by the assessee and her husband, with payments made in earlier years, not the impugned year. The bank statements of the husband, evidencing the payments, were also available.
The Tribunal held that the consultancy expenses incurred for obtaining US-FDA approval were revenue in nature, as they were for regulatory compliance and did not create a capital asset or enduring benefit. The Tribunal also noted that similar expenses were allowed in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the absence of DIN in the CIT(A)'s order as it was inadvertently raised. The ground concerning the delayed payment of PF & ESIC and interest on TDS were dismissed as covered by judicial precedents. The issue of interest on income tax refund was restored to the AO for determining the exact date of refund grant. The issue of difference in Form 26AS was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication based on a previous ITAT order.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file the prescribed form for claiming deduction is directory, not mandatory. Since the form was filed before the assessment order and numerous judicial precedents support allowing deductions even with delayed filing, the denial was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) committed a procedural infirmity by allowing relief based on additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine and rebut it, as required by Rule 46A(3). The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the protective addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not sustainable as the substantive addition was deleted on merits. Regarding the transfer pricing adjustment, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the transaction did not qualify as a specified domestic transaction under Section 92BA, as the Revenue's own case indicated the transaction reduced profits rather than increasing them for the entity claiming deduction under Section 80IA.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible to continue under the concessional tax regime prescribed under section 115BAB of the Act for AY 2023-24, as the option exercised in AY 2022-23 continues for subsequent years. The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the assessee had commenced manufacturing or production activity within the meaning of section 115BAB(2)(a) is a matter requiring factual verification and is inherently debatable, thus not a mistake apparent from the record that can be adjusted under section 143(1). The Tribunal further held that the action of the CPC in applying a higher tax rate of 30% without prior intimation or opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that in the preceding year, the same claim under section 115BAB had been accepted by the Department. Therefore, the denial of the benefit without affording an opportunity of hearing is unsustainable. The Tribunal concluded that the issue relating to the applicability of the concessional tax rate under section 115BAB could not have been the subject matter of adjustment under section 143(1) without giving an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the mere presence of religious objects in the trust deed does not disentitle an institution from approval under section 80G, especially when the predominant purpose and actual activities are charitable. The crucial factor is whether expenditure on religious purposes exceeds the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiries and taken plausible views supported by judicial precedents on all three issues. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report is a procedural issue and not a ground to deny exemption. The return filed under Section 139(4) is considered valid, and since the audit report was also filed, it constitutes substantial compliance. Therefore, the denial of exemption on technical grounds is unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable and bona fide cause for not filing the return of income, as the loan transaction was purely foreign and already substantively taxed in the hands of her brother. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271F was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether disclosed income is business income or unexplained money is debatable and cannot be rectified under Section 154. The AO's action amounted to a review, which is impermissible under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed with a significant delay of 304 days without any application for condonation or explanation for the delay. The Tribunal also noted consistent non-compliance by the assessee before all authorities. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred and in limine.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made a disallowance based on the erroneous assumption that the assessee was a working partner in only one firm. The assessee demonstrated involvement in two firms and as a sole proprietor, and the expenses were incurred for these businesses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding the assessee's explanation of business closure, attachment of bank accounts, and lack of staff to be a reasonable and bona fide cause, supported by contemporaneous facts. The Tribunal applied the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that the length of delay is immaterial if the explanation is satisfactory and free from malafide. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders were passed ex parte without ensuring effective service and opportunity, violating principles of natural justice and section 250(2). The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's plea that expenses on which TDS was deducted but not deposited had already been disallowed in the computation of income and that payees had returned the income, which required factual verification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) in both appeals and restored the matters to the files of the respective CIT(A)/Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal to the Income-tax Department. The issue of addition on account of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and treating the assessee as in default under section 201(1) were not decided on merits but were restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while some objects were specific, the CIT(E) had not gone through the financials to ascertain the trust's activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for verification of financials and proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was at fault for not participating in hearings, the CIT(A) had not correctly appreciated the facts and had confirmed additions without confronting adverse materials. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned by the Principal Commissioner under Section 119(2)(b), validating the assessee's option for Section 115BAA. The denial of the concessional rate was therefore no longer valid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting it was not deliberate. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing that the appellant be given a proper opportunity of hearing. A cost of Rs. 5000 was imposed on the appellant to be paid to the Prime Minister's Welfare Fund within two weeks for not explaining the previous non-reply to notices.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was at fault for not participating in hearings, the CIT(A) had not correctly appreciated the facts and had confirmed additions without confronting adverse materials. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on both grounds. Regarding the unsecured loans, the Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged its onus by filing all documentary evidence proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the cash creditors. The AO had found no infirmity in these documents, and therefore, there was no reason for further inquiries. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) should have conducted its own inquiries, stating that the deletion was based on the factual finding that the assessee had provided all necessary evidence, which remained uncontroverted. For the housing loan interest deduction, the Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished documents evidencing the payment of interest, which the AO had failed to examine. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's plea to restore the issue to the AO for verification of the spouse's claim, as the evidence of payment was already before the AO. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting both additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable and bona fide cause for not filing the return of income, as the loan transaction was purely foreign and already substantively taxed in the hands of her brother. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271F was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable and bona fide cause for not filing the return of income, as the loan transaction was purely foreign and already substantively taxed in the hands of her brother. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271F was unsustainable.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not validly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessments. The belief of income escapement was found to be a borrowed belief from the ACB without independent application of mind by the AO.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not validly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessments. The belief of income escapement was found to be a borrowed belief from the ACB without independent application of mind by the AO.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not validly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessments. The belief of income escapement was found to be a borrowed belief from the ACB without independent application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not validly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessments under Section 147 of the Act for all four assessment years. The primary challenge was the validity of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the AO had merely borrowed the belief of the ACB without applying their own mind to the information. There was no specification of the asset amounting to Rs. 5.38 Lakhs attributed as disproportionate to the assessee for AY 2017-18, and the reasons for belief of escapement of income did not specify the escaped income. The Tribunal cited the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in Kantibhai Dharamsinhbhai Narola, emphasizing that the AO must form their own reasonable belief based on tangible material and that the belief cannot be borrowed. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 147 for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 were set aside as invalid. Following the same reasoning, the orders passed under Section 263 for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 were also quashed as invalid. Since the legal ground regarding jurisdiction was decided in favour of the assessee, the grounds on merits were rendered academic and did not require consideration. The operative direction was to quash the impugned orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the complexity of the provisions. The Tribunal directed that the assessee's application be treated as moved under the correct clause (iii) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) and restored the matter to the Ld.CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not verify the financials of the trust and did not properly adjudicate the aspect of its objects relating to charity to the general public. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant was not given an opportunity of hearing.