Loading ITAT cases…
192 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal considered the admission made by the assessee's counsel. It was deemed fit to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing the appellate order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the short grant of interest under Section 244A was valid. The interest on refund should be computed up to the date of credit of refund into the assessee's bank account.
The Tribunal held that the mere existence of some religious objects does not disqualify an institution if its primary purpose is charitable. The CIT(E) had not considered the assessee's explanation regarding the nature of its expenses.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid as it was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order under Section 148A(d) was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that post-amendment, quantification by DSIR in Form 3CL is mandatory for Section 35(2AB) deductions. Failure to verify this makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, justifying revision under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal as non-maintainable without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) indicated only one notice of hearing was issued before passing the dismissal order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided evidence, such as emails and appeals to the PMO on CPGRAM, demonstrating efforts to obtain the intimation under Section 143(1), suggesting a genuine reason for the delay. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the addition of capital gains in the intimation was made without assigning any reason and without considering the cost of acquisition. Considering these facts, the Tribunal found that the interest of justice demanded that the assessee be given another opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate both the maintainability of the appeal and the merits thereof. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee consistently followed a specific method for its expenses and profit declaration. Finding no reason to interfere with the profit declared by the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 603 days, finding the assessee's explanation reasonable and supported by affidavit. The Tribunal held that the subsequent reduction in total income due to carry forward of losses did not affect the penalty levied on the quantum additions confirmed by ITAT. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the contractual receipts were already taxed by the partnership firm. For the unexplained investment, the AO was instructed to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the source. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the property was indeed owned by the assessee's HUF and trust, supported by a will, the sale deed reflecting the HUF/trust as sellers, and bank statements showing receipt of sale consideration by them. The Tribunal concluded that merely using the individual's PAN during registration was an insufficient and flimsy ground to disregard strong documentary evidence of ownership, and thus, capital gains could not be taxed in the individual's hands.
The ITAT, following a precedent case, ruled that the CIT(E)'s rejection was incorrect. It determined that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the extended time under CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024 for filing a fresh application to correct errors, especially since the rectification occurred before the original application was finally rejected. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed a fresh consideration of the application after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently failed to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the lenders before both the AO and CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee is to be given due opportunity to furnish all relevant documents and explanations.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted Form 15CB for payments to non-residents and duly deposited tax at source in accordance with the Income Tax Act and DTAA. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not a defaulter for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order arbitrary, as it had accepted the assessee's agricultural activities and sales bills for Rs. 8,62,000/- but rejected the remaining bills solely because the cash deposit did not tally, deeming this an absurd reason. Noting that similar agricultural income was accepted in subsequent scrutiny assessments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the Rs. 4,90,000/- addition.
The Tribunal found that the new notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the 'surviving period' as defined by precedents from the Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court. Consequently, both the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment order under Section 147 were declared bad in law and void ab initio, as the Revenue failed to controvert the assessee's evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was one of 20 co-owners and received Rs. 1,77,000/-, which was below the taxable limit. Consequently, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the CPC erred in denying the special tax rate without providing any reason or show cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) also failed to adjudicate this ground properly.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not grant the assessee an opportunity to clarify the erroneous explanation for the delay. Considering the minor delay and the substantial penalty, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to allow the assessee to explain the delay and then decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities failed to bring cogent evidence to demonstrate that the impugned funds actually belonged to the assessee. The findings of the lower authorities were based merely on assumptions and without corroborative material on record. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69B of the Act was deleted.
The tribunal upheld the PCIT's order under Section 263, affirming that PCIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 is not precluded even if the error could have been rectified under Section 154 or Section 147. It also clarified that the merits of the depreciation disallowance itself were pending before the CIT(A) in a separate quantum appeal and should not be adjudicated in this appeal against the Section 263 order.
Observing the assessee's repeated non-compliance and delay, but in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions for the assessee to fully comply by submitting all documents and adhering to notices without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. It observed that the revenue authorities failed to adequately establish whether the properties were 'stock in trade' or 'capital assets'.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation credible as the revenue authorities presented no contrary evidence or disputed the details provided. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that a return filed in response to a Section 142(1) notice, even if delayed, is valid, and the provisions of Section 80A(5) would apply. It noted that the lower authorities had not examined the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication regarding the eligibility and quantum of the Section 80P deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly invoked the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) to set aside the assessment as it was not made under Section 144. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by the decision in the assessee's own case for the preceding year. The Tribunal upheld the transfer pricing adjustment for both onshore and offshore transactions and rejected the assessee's grounds regarding the CUP method and consequential interest levy.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the CIT(A) deleting the additions were correct and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal found considerable force in the CIT(A)'s reasoning. It was undisputed that the loans were repaid in full by account payee cheques before the search, and interest was subjected to TDS. Crucially, no material was found during the search at the assessee's premises to indicate cash movement from the assessee to the lenders in lieu of cheques. The additions were based on third-party statements and general investigation reports in the Pravin Jain group case, which lacked a live nexus with the assessee and could not constitute incriminating material for section 153A purposes. The Tribunal reiterated that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, citing *Sinhgad Technical Education Society* and *Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd.*. The principle of 'human probability' cannot override the requirement for cogent evidence under section 68, especially when the assessee had produced primary evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, which was not rebutted. The Tribunal also noted that section 68 did not obligate the assessee to prove the 'source of the source' at the relevant time. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous as no arguments were advanced and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed on merits.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the CIT(A) deleting the additions were correct and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal found considerable force in the CIT(A)'s reasoning. It was undisputed that the loans were repaid in full by account payee cheques before the search, and interest was subjected to TDS. Crucially, no material was found during the search at the assessee's premises to indicate cash movement from the assessee to the lenders in lieu of cheques. The additions were based on third-party statements and general investigation reports in the Pravin Jain group case, which lacked a live nexus with the assessee and could not constitute incriminating material for section 153A purposes. The Tribunal reiterated that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, citing *Sinhgad Technical Education Society* and *Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd.*. The principle of 'human probability' cannot override the requirement for cogent evidence under section 68, especially when the assessee had produced primary evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, which was not rebutted. The Tribunal also noted that section 68 did not obligate the assessee to prove the 'source of the source' at the relevant time. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as infructuous as no arguments were advanced and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and allowed the assessee an opportunity to produce the required documents, directing the assessee to regularly check their notified email addresses for compliance.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits pertained to the assessee's business of arranging air tickets and foreign exchange, with similar deposits in previous years. It noted that the assessee provided customer details and there was no contrary evidence, concluding that no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the assessee's rural background and bona fide belief. It admitted additional evidence to prove the pass-through nature of transactions and remanded the case to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing examination of the new evidence with an opportunity for the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed for the delay.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue failed to produce any evidence demonstrating that the assessee actually purchased, sold, or received any money from the alleged penny stock transactions, hence no addition could be sustained.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest expenses is not sustainable as the assessee had ample own funds. For administrative expenses, the disallowance should be calculated based on average investment in only those assets that yielded exempt income during the year.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 8,14,054 on account of agricultural expenses could not be sustained. The Tribunal reasoned that while the ITAT had upheld 40% agricultural expenses in the case of Shri Dhirubhai L. Narola & Others, this did not automatically imply that agricultural expenses in every case must be 40%. Agricultural expenses can vary based on factors like land area, crop type, mechanization, and irrigation. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer neither disputed the gross agricultural receipts nor found fault with the evidence for the claimed expenses. The disallowance was based on presumption, and no evidence was presented to show that the assessee incurred additional expenses of Rs. 8,14,054. Therefore, the addition was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had pointed out differences between the assessee's submissions and unit-wise P&L accounts for Section 80IA deduction. The assessee explained these differences as due to rounding off and a factual error in reporting the number of units generated. The Tribunal found that this explanation was placed before the CIT(A) but not dealt with in detail. Since the explanation was factual and required verification with underlying computation sheets and unit records, the Tribunal restored this issue to the AO for fresh examination. Regarding the Central Excise refund, the Tribunal observed that the AO considered it income as the duty was borne by the assessee, while the assessee contended it was a balance sheet adjustment as the duty was paid via CENVAT credit and not debited to the P&L. The Tribunal found that the exact accounting treatment in FY 2015-16 and the nature of the refund were not conclusively established by the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, this issue was also remitted to the AO for re-examination of accounting entries, CENVAT credit utilization, and refund orders, after affording the assessee an adequate opportunity. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found the commission payments genuine, supported by increased sales/profits, banking channels, and recipient confirmations, noting the AO's observation of non-response from one party was factually incorrect. Regarding TDS on job work, the Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed deducted TDS and submitted all necessary returns and forms (26AS, 16A). Both disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were therefore deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the AO relied on GSTR-1 data from the Insight Portal without the assessee's actual GSTR-1 filing. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the discrepancy, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was already set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits. Therefore, this appeal involving penalty under section 270A was also set aside to the file of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal remanded the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) and the 10% expense disallowance back to the AO for fresh verification and opportunity to the assessee. The disallowance of delayed PF/ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va) was dismissed, as it was covered by Supreme Court precedent. The disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was also remanded to the AO for verification of the business purpose of advances.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 was legally valid. It affirmed that tax depreciation is governed by the Income Tax Act, not accounting practices, and that government grants related to depreciable assets must be adjusted from the asset's cost or WDV, or taxed as income.
On the first issue, the Tribunal held that Vega Industries (Middle East) FZC, UAE, is a duly incorporated company under the laws of a country outside India and cannot be treated as a proprietary concern of the assessee merely due to 100% shareholding. This finding was consistent with previous Tribunal decisions for earlier assessment years. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld, and Revenue's Ground No. 1 was dismissed. On the second issue, the Tribunal found that electric fittings and installations are part of plant and machinery, and depreciation at 15% is allowable, as held in earlier Tribunal decisions. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld, and Revenue's Ground No. 2 was dismissed. On the third issue, the Tribunal held that the payment of Rs. 31,11,00,000/- was a compensatory payment made out of commercial expediency to settle a civil dispute and protect business interests, not a penalty or for a purpose prohibited by law. The Tribunal also noted that Explanation 3 to Section 37(1), inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, was not applicable retrospectively to AY 2014-15, and the newly inserted clause (iv) to Explanation 3 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, also did not apply retrospectively and did not cover patent disputes. Therefore, the disallowance was unsustainable and ordered to be deleted. Assessee's Grounds No. 1 and 2 were allowed. The alternative plea under Section 28 became academic. The general grounds and issues related to interest and penalty were dealt with accordingly.
On Revenue's Ground No. 1, the Tribunal held that Vega Industries (Middle East) FZC, UAE, is a duly incorporated company under the laws of a country outside India and thus a company within the definition of Section 2(17) of the Act. It cannot be treated as a proprietary concern of the assessee merely due to 100% shareholding. The addition made by the AO was not sustainable, and the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. On Revenue's Ground No. 2, the Tribunal held that electric fittings and installations are part and parcel of plant & machinery, without which it cannot be operated. Therefore, depreciation at 15% as applicable to plant & machinery was allowable. The CIT(A) correctly followed earlier Tribunal decisions, and the disallowance was deleted. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. On Assessee's Ground No. 1, the Tribunal held that the payment of Rs. 31,11,00,000/- was a compensatory payment made out of commercial expediency to settle a civil dispute and protect business interests. It was not a penalty for an offense or for a purpose prohibited by law under Explanation 1 to Section 37(1). The Tribunal found that Explanation 3 to Section 37(1) is not applicable to AY 2014-15, as it was inserted with effect from April 1, 2022, and cannot be applied retrospectively. Furthermore, the newly inserted clause (iv) to Explanation 3 to Section 37(1) (effective April 1, 2025) does not apply as patent disputes are not notified by the CBDT. Therefore, the disallowance was unsustainable and ordered to be deleted. On Assessee's Ground No. 2, the alternative plea to treat the payment as a business loss under Section 28 became academic as the claim under Section 37 was allowed. Grounds 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Assessee's appeal were either general, infructuous, consequential, or premature and were disposed of accordingly. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Assessee's appeal was allowed.