Loading ITAT cases…
212 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.
The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.
The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.
The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.
The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Regarding the quantum appeal (ITA No. 907/Ahd/2025), the Tribunal noted the assessee's complete non-compliance before the Assessing Officer and the NFAC, despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal held that the assessee could not escape responsibility by blaming their counsel and that the assessee was negligent. However, considering the circumstances and the assessee's request for an opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, subject to the payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The AO was directed to allow the assessee another opportunity to explain the nature of deposits and transactions with Navkar Impex, allowing the production of additional evidence. The AO was also given liberty to pass an order based on available material if compliance was not made. For the penalty appeal (ITA No. 908/Ahd/2025), since the quantum addition was set aside, the Tribunal also set aside the penalty proceedings to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after completing the set-aside assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 28.09.2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B without awaiting the DVO's report, when such report was statutorily awaited, is not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee's statutory right under Section 50C(2) was violated, as the AO failed to await the DVO's determination and afford the assessee an opportunity to contest the valuation, which is a breach of mandatory procedure and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also held that the subsequent rectification order dated 20.11.2024 under Section 154 is not sustainable as it seeks to alter the assessment based on material not forming part of the original record and cannot be regarded as a "mistake apparent from record." The Tribunal further observed that the CIT(A) erred in upholding both the assessment and rectification orders and in confirming disallowances without proper opportunity, noting that the CIT(A) did not deal with judicial precedents effectively and rejected the assessee's request for further hearing on disallowances. The Tribunal declared the assessment order and rectification order invalid and quashed them. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition concerning alleged undisclosed sale consideration for the property sale by Anuradha Shivkumar Gogia was not sustainable. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, and the Revenue failed to produce contrary evidence or cross-examine the buyer. The Tribunal noted that an un-acted upon draft agreement is not conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and a sworn affidavit. The reliance on the uncorroborated statement of a third party (Shiv Kumar Gogia) was also deemed insufficient. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted. Regarding the low tax effect, the Tribunal dismissed two appeals by the Revenue (IT(SS)A 79/AHD/2024 and IT(SS)A 81/AHD/2024) as not maintainable, as their tax effect was below the prescribed limit under Section 268A. Concerning the validity of approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal noted that since all Revenue appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees, the cross-objections on this issue were rendered academic and were dismissed at this stage, with the assessee at liberty to raise them later if needed.
The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the sale of property. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the price reduction, supported by a sworn affidavit from the purchaser, which stated no cash payment was made beyond the registered sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not cross-examine the buyer or present evidence of cash changing hands. An un-acted upon draft agreement was not considered conclusive evidence, especially when contradicted by the registered document and the buyer's affidavit. The Tribunal also held that the uncorroborated statement of Shiv Kumar Gogia, a third party to the transaction, lacked evidentiary value, particularly as the assessee was not confronted with it. Consequently, the addition was ordered to be deleted. The Tribunal also dismissed two appeals by the revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, below the CBDT prescribed limit under Section 268A. The cross-objections filed by the assessees regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D were dismissed as academic, as the revenue's appeals were decided on merits in favor of the assessees.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to furnish the necessary documents and details before the Ld. CIT(E). Consequently, the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E) were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh decision on both applications. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to provide a proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and furnish details. The assessee was also directed to promptly furnish the requisite details and documents and reply to any queries. The Ld. CIT(E) will then decide the applications on merits in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 611 days in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause for the delay and acting in the interest of substantial justice, with no objection from the revenue. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal acknowledged that the addition was made due to the absence of supporting evidence regarding the capital increase and that the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence before the CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's willingness to furnish complete evidence and the request for a final opportunity, coupled with the revenue's no objection to restoration, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after granting an adequate opportunity to the assessee. This restoration was made subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within 30 days and furnishing proof of payment. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully and not seek unwarranted adjournments, and the CIT(A) was instructed to pass a speaking order without being influenced by earlier orders. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to furnish required documents and explanations to the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all relevant bank statements, documents, and details of toll charges.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) is to be computed with reference to the 'total income' as defined in section 2(45) of the Act, which includes income from all sources, including capital gains. The Tribunal reasoned that the language of section 36(1)(viia) is explicit and unambiguous, stating 'seven and one-half per cent of the total income (computed before making any deduction under this clause and Chapter VIA)'. The statute does not carve out any exception excluding capital gains for this computation. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the plain meaning of statutory language. Therefore, the AO's original computation was in conformity with the law, and the PCIT's direction to restrict the deduction to business income was not sustainable. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the issue concerning section 14A was not examined by the AO during the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the PCIT's order on this issue and upheld the PCIT's direction to apply section 14A.
The Tribunal held that for the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to furnish the necessary documents and details. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd. were not a penny stock and the transactions were genuine. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for claiming exemption under Section 10(38).
The Tribunal condoned the 435-day delay in filing the appeal and noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance during assessment and first appellate proceedings. Subject to the payment of a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, the matter was set aside to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, directing another opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of cash payments against credit card expenses, allowing for submission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the object related to religious programs was not for propagating religion but for raising funds for charitable activities. It was aimed at benefiting the public at large and guiding society towards moral and spiritual well-being.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee opts for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and settles the dispute, the matters covered therein cannot be reopened under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Mrs. Swatiben Biharilal Parekh was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 62,57,776/- under section 57 of the Act against the interest income assessed under the head 'income from other sources'. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the lower authorities had neither doubted the genuineness of the expenditure nor rejected the audited books of account. The disallowance was confirmed merely on the premise that the assessee failed to establish a one-to-one nexus between expenditure and income assessed under section 56. The Tribunal reasoned that section 57(iii) requires expenditure to have a proximate and reasonable nexus with the earning of income, not an exclusive or direct attribution. Earning of interest income is an integral part of the society's activities, and once the revenue taxes such income under 'income from other sources', the corresponding expenditure incurred for earning it cannot be ignored. The Tribunal relied on the co-ordinate bench decision in Ashapura Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No. 490/Ahd/2025, which held that where the assessee earns interest from deployment of funds arising from its business activities and such income is assessed under section 56, expenditure attributable to earning such income is allowable under section 57. The Tribunal noted that the revenue had not placed any material to show that the expenditure was fictitious, unrelated, capital in nature, or unsupported by records, nor was there a finding that the assessee's working was erroneous. Therefore, the mere absence of a granular, transactional bifurcation could not be a ground to deny deduction. The grounds relating to interest levy were held to be consequential and not requiring separate adjudication. The ground challenging penalty proceedings under section 270A was dismissed as premature. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had already quashed the underlying assessment orders, holding that demands prior to the resolution plan's effective date were extinguished. Consequently, as the foundation for the Section 263 orders ceased to exist, the Tribunal ruled that the PCIT's revisional orders could not survive. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the orders passed by the PCIT under Section 263 for both assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings invalid and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention of fraudulent use of his Demat account and the claim of parallel assessment in Mr. Joshi's hands. Since the assessee requested an opportunity to furnish further evidence, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee. The assessee informed the Tribunal that the CIT(A) had already set aside the appeal to the AO for de novo adjudication as per Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, rendering the present appeal unnecessary.
The Tribunal held that the donation was not eligible for deduction as the recipient institution's approval was withdrawn prior to the donation. The reopening of assessment was also considered valid as it was based on fresh information regarding the withdrawal of approval.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was unsustainable. The PCIT failed to demonstrate any error in the assessment orders, which were based on detailed inquiries and replies from the assessee, and did not conduct independent investigations.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings invalid and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the quantum addition appeals to the AO for de novo assessment, subject to the assessee depositing costs. Penalties levied consequential to these additions were ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had already quashed the underlying assessment orders, holding that demands prior to the resolution plan's effective date were extinguished. Consequently, as the foundation for the Section 263 orders ceased to exist, the Tribunal ruled that the PCIT's revisional orders could not survive. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the orders passed by the PCIT under Section 263 for both assessment years.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal set aside the quantum assessment orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000 per appeal) to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The consequential penalties were deleted at this stage, with liberty granted to the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after the de novo assessment, if warranted.
The Tribunal set aside the quantum assessment orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000 per appeal) to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The consequential penalties were deleted at this stage, with liberty granted to the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after the de novo assessment, if warranted.
The Tribunal set aside the quantum assessment orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000 per appeal) to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The consequential penalties were deleted at this stage, with liberty granted to the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after the de novo assessment, if warranted.
The Tribunal set aside the quantum assessment orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000 per appeal) to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The consequential penalties were deleted at this stage, with liberty granted to the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after the de novo assessment, if warranted.
The Tribunal set aside the quantum assessment orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000 per appeal) to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The consequential penalties were deleted at this stage, with liberty granted to the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after the de novo assessment, if warranted.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was unsustainable. The PCIT failed to demonstrate any error in the assessment orders, which were based on detailed inquiries and replies from the assessee, and did not conduct independent investigations.
The Tribunal set aside the quantum assessment orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000 per appeal) to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The consequential penalties were deleted at this stage, with liberty granted to the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after the de novo assessment, if warranted.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not comply with the show cause notice, in the interest of natural justice, an opportunity should have been provided. Therefore, the matter was set aside.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition under Section 69A, as the assessee's income was unconditionally exempt under Section 10(26AAB) and it was not statutorily required to file a return, as per CBDT Circular No. 18/2017. The tribunal noted that the department had accepted the assessee's exempt status in previous assessment years without any change in facts or law. Consequently, the additions for both assessment years were directed to be deleted.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition under Section 69A, as the assessee's income was unconditionally exempt under Section 10(26AAB) and it was not statutorily required to file a return, as per CBDT Circular No. 18/2017. The tribunal noted that the department had accepted the assessee's exempt status in previous assessment years without any change in facts or law. Consequently, the additions for both assessment years were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer ignored the Valuation Officer's report and decided the case on surmises. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to consider the DVO report, adjudicate the issues on merit as per the Income Tax Act, and provide the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans was unwarranted as the balance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was duly repaid by the assessee in the subsequent year, supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal also held that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could not be upheld because neither the AO nor the CIT(A) carried out the mandatory verification as directed by the previous ITAT order to ascertain if the payee had included the corresponding income in its return. One ground relating to bad debts was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the institute was not approved for receiving donations under Section 35(1)(ii) after March 31, 2006, and the donations were made based on forged documents. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the payments for the property purchase were made through account payee cheques from an SBI OD loan account, which was substantiated by bank statements and the sale deed. The disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A was also directed to be allowed, subject to prescribed ceilings.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It allowed the disallowance of commission of Rs.2,02,750/- and Rs.55,700/- paid to two parties, finding that sales were made through them and TDS was deducted. However, it upheld the disallowance of Rs.57,308/- and Rs.35,980/- paid to two other parties, as no sales were effected through them and no fresh evidence was presented. The ground regarding lack of video conferencing opportunity was dismissed as adequate opportunity was provided.
The Tribunal noted that since the underlying quantum additions were already remanded for fresh adjudication, the penalties could not be sustained at this stage. Citing Section 275(1A), it set aside both penalty orders, remanding them to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication based on the eventual findings of the CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the matter required factual verification of the Auto-Sweep Account with the books of account, as a crucial document explaining the routing of funds was not before the Assessing Officer. The addition's basis might not survive this verification.