Loading ITAT cases…
192 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal found that the ad-hoc disallowances on indirect expenses and purchases lacked specific defects in the books of account and were unsustainable. The addition on account of unsecured loan was also deleted as it was received through banking channels and repaid. Therefore, the additions were partly confirmed and partly deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's contentions. Principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard. The matter is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as it was based on information regarding transactions with both entities. It directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit on alleged bogus purchases at 5% higher than the assessee's disclosed GP rate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided detailed party-wise breakup of commission payments, including PAN and TDS details. The AO's disallowance was made without proper verification, and the addition was arbitrary.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was only a co-owner of the land and had not provided evidence that other co-owners did not disclose agricultural income. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee claimed income from crops other than Sundhiyu without substantiating expenses or sales for them.
The Tribunal held that seized cash and jewellery, if explained as business income from land deals, cannot be treated as unexplained under Sections 69A/69B without corroborative evidence. It also held that brokerage income additions require specific admissions or evidence, not just mechanical calculations.
The Tribunal held that the CPC, while processing the return under Section 143(1), has no jurisdiction to make such a disallowance of TDS credit as it is not an arithmetical error or apparent incorrect claim, especially when the TDS is reflected in Form 26AS. The disallowance was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the entire deposits could not be added as income. It was determined that only the profit element from the business transactions associated with these deposits should be taxed. The profit element was estimated at 8% of the total deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal, considering the overall facts and circumstances, condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the case on merits by way of a speaking order, potentially calling for a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the AO relied solely on information from external sources without forming an independent opinion. Furthermore, the assessee had provided documentary evidence and even incurred losses in subsequent years on the same scrip, indicating bonafide investment.
The Tribunal held that the cash sales of the assessee were comparable to earlier years, and the Revenue had not disputed the availability of stock. Therefore, cash receipts from sales could not be treated as unexplained.
The Tribunal held that the entire deposits could not be added as income. It was determined that only the profit element from the business transactions associated with these deposits should be taxed. The profit element was estimated at 8% of the total deposits.
The Tribunal held that the entire deposits could not be added as income. It was determined that only the profit element from the business transactions associated with these deposits should be taxed. The profit element was estimated at 8% of the total deposits.
The Tribunal held that the entire deposits could not be added as income. It was determined that only the profit element from the business transactions associated with these deposits should be taxed. The profit element was estimated at 8% of the total deposits.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had noted that the sales transactions were duly supported by sales invoices, delivery challans, bank statements, and contra accounts of the sale parties. Advance payments were received through RTGS, with no cash payments. Purchases were made through banks, and the subsequent sales were properly recorded in the stock register. The AO had treated sales of Rs. 140.54 crore as bogus based on a forensic report, misinterpreting 'CHCLDAT' as 'challan date' when it was 'cheque clearing date', and 'E-DATE' as 'entry date' when it was 'view date'. The AO, in his remand report, accepted the contra accounts furnished for sale transactions of Rs. 140.54 crore as in order. The CIT(A) concluded that all sales entries were recorded in books, backed by invoices and delivery challans, with advance payments received through bank RTGS. Purchases were from banks, and deliveries to buyers were accompanied by invoices and challans. The CIT(A) found no need for backdated entries as sales were completed upon payment and delivery. Contra accounts submitted by the assessee were found to be in order by the AO during remand proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO, and the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had noted that the sales transactions were duly supported by sales invoices, delivery challans, bank statements, and contra accounts of the sale parties. Advance payments were received through RTGS, with no cash payments. Purchases were made through banks, and the subsequent sales were properly recorded in the stock register. The AO had treated sales of Rs. 140.54 crore as bogus based on a forensic report, misinterpreting 'CHCLDAT' as 'challan date' when it was 'cheque clearing date', and 'E-DATE' as 'entry date' when it was 'view date'. The AO, in his remand report, accepted the contra accounts furnished for sale transactions of Rs. 140.54 crore as in order. The CIT(A) concluded that all sales entries were recorded in books, backed by invoices and delivery challans, with advance payments received through bank RTGS. Purchases were from banks, and deliveries to buyers were accompanied by invoices and challans. The CIT(A) found no need for backdated entries as sales were completed upon payment and delivery. Contra accounts submitted by the assessee were found to be in order by the AO during remand proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO, and the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals. Specifically, it directed the Assessing Officer to grant full TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS and remanded the issue of deduction under Section 42 to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication as per DRP directions.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals. Specifically, it directed the Assessing Officer to grant full TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS and remanded the issue of deduction under Section 42 to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication as per DRP directions.
The Tribunal held that as the amended proviso to section 12AB, applicable from 01.04.2025, allows for ten years of registration under certain conditions, and the order was passed on 20.08.2025, the assessee is entitled to ten years of registration.
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals. Specifically, it directed the Assessing Officer to grant full TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS and remanded the issue of deduction under Section 42 to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication as per DRP directions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had multiple opportunities to furnish details to the CIT(A) but failed to do so. However, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's plea for another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with the opportunities given by the lower authorities. However, to provide a chance for a de novo assessment, the matter was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had erred in invoking Section 263 of the Act. The issues raised by the PCIT were already examined and verified by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. The PCIT's order was considered a 'second opinion', which is not permissible under Section 263.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance made under Section 14A by the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that it was an admitted fact that the assessee had sufficient own funds, far exceeding the investments made in tax-exempt instruments, and had voluntarily made a suo motu disallowance. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, citing binding precedents in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years, where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. (SC), which held that where an assessee had surplus funds against which minor investments were made, no disallowance under Section 14A arose. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had considered the time utilized for investment transactions and allocated relevant salary costs. Since the grounds in the Cross Objection supported the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, which was upheld, the Cross Objection was rendered infructuous and dismissed. The issue of penalty proceedings under Section 270A was not explicitly decided by the Tribunal in the provided text, but the overall dismissal of the Revenue's appeal implies no adverse finding on this point for the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in the interest of justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant bank statements, submissions, and documents, and to comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal found that since the original agreement for property purchase was made in 2007 with a part payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- through banking channels in the same year, the provisions of Section 50C or Section 56(vii)(b)(ii) were not attracted. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to allow another opportunity to the Legal Heirs of the deceased assessee, who had expired during the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order. The AO's failure to conduct further inquiry into the genuineness of the donation, despite information suggesting Aadhar Foundation was involved in bogus donations, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient and undisputed documentary evidence, including bank statements and assessment orders, to prove the source of the funds remitted from the USA. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not owning more than one residential property at the time of sale of the capital asset. Villas 13 & 14 were under construction and considered business assets, with advances received and TDS deducted before the sale of the Artwork/Painting. The deduction under Section 54F was rightly claimed and allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of generic information from the Investigation Wing without primary evidence. Denial of cross-examination and lack of corroborative evidence vitiated the reassessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after noting the explanation provided. However, it directed the assessee to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. Subject to this, the CIT(A) was directed to allow another opportunity to the assessee to explain the cash deposits and adjudicate the grounds on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts and the addition on account of cash deposits, citing the unreliability of the supplier and lack of evidence for sales. The addition on account of opening stock was deleted by the CIT(A) on technical grounds, and the GP estimation was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including stock records, sales registers, and bank statements, to explain the cash deposits as arising from regular business receipts. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting it was unintentional due to the consultant's negligence. However, recognizing the assessee's repeated non-compliance before lower authorities, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee. Subject to the payment of this cost, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to provide a fresh opportunity for the assessee to explain the additions with relevant evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the purchase deed for the new agricultural land was executed, and cheques for the entire consideration were issued on 14.08.2019, which was prior to the due date for filing the Return of Income. Since the assessee maintained sufficient bank balance to honor the cheques and the reinvestment within the prescribed time was undisputed, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the full Section 54B deduction.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement and that substantive benefits under Section 11 should not be denied for a technical defect, especially when the report was filed within the due date. The CPC and Ld. CIT(A) erred in overlooking the timely filed Form 10B.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal on a technical ground of delay without appreciating the bona fide cause denied justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was initiated based on suspicion and general information, without specific cogent material linking the transaction to the assessee's books. The assessee had provided supporting documents which were not rebutted by the Revenue. Reopening without fresh material, on an issue already examined, amounts to a change of opinion, which is impermissible.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not attend proceedings before the AO and CIT(A) and the appeal to the CIT(A) was belated. While acknowledging the impact of COVID, the delay was not fully attributable to it. The matter was remanded back to the AO for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the Section 14A disallowance but directed its allocation. It deleted the addition related to employee benefit expenses, finding the assessee's allocation method more scientific. Disallowances for channel partner/retail promotion and conference expenses were partly upheld.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny to a new issue without obtaining permission. The Tribunal also found that, on merits, the transactions did not constitute deemed dividend as the amounts were merely temporary transfers for bank technicalities and were reversed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments made with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The court relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions which affirmed that cooperative banks are also cooperative societies for the purpose of this deduction.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order. The unsecured loans in question were part of transactions in a bank account operated by Shri Sanjay Shah, which had already been assessed in his hands. The revenue failed to produce evidence that the assessee received these loans from the stated party.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case and that the assessee's share of consideration was not categorically taken into account. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after verifying all relevant details.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order under Section 154 was bad in law as it involved a debatable issue, which cannot be adjudicated under Section 154. The Tribunal noted that the AO's action was not a correction of a 'mistake apparent from record' but a fresh initiation of penalty, exceeding the AO's jurisdiction. The CIT(A)'s finding that no prejudice was caused was also found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that since the PCIT's order u/s 263 was set aside by a coordinate bench, the consequent assessment order could not survive. The CIT(A) had rightly quashed the assessment order. Similarly, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments made with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The court relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions which affirmed that cooperative banks are also cooperative societies for the purpose of this deduction.