Loading ITAT cases…
212 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on previous coordinate bench orders for the same transaction involving joint-owners, which had held the land to be agricultural land and not a capital asset under Section 2(14). The Tribunal affirmed that there was no merit in interfering with the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's Cross Objections regarding the validity of the assessment reopening were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions related to other credits and import payments. The partial confirmation of cash deposit addition and allowance of set off for business loss were also upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions related to other credits and import payments. The partial confirmation of cash deposit addition and allowance of set off for business loss were also upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the finding that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to technical glitches in the faceless e-proceedings, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the provisional registration (Form 10AC) as a regular registration (Form 10AB), valid for five years from 01/04/2021, acknowledging the prevailing confusion. Consequently, the rejection of the 80G approval was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits during demonetization were sufficiently explained by the assessee's cash sales and business practices. It also ruled that accretion to partners' capital accounts cannot be assessed as income of the partnership firm.
The Tribunal held that the issue had already been deliberated upon in the case of the purchaser, M/s. Safal Goyal Realty LLP. In that case, both the CIT(A) and the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal had concurrently deleted the addition made by the AO on the allegation of 'on-money' payment. The Tribunal noted that the deletion in the purchaser's case was based on the finding that the addition was solely based on the statement of a real estate broker without corroborative evidence, that the purchase consideration was significantly higher than the Jantri value, and that both the seller and broker had denied any 'on-money' transaction. The Tribunal further observed that the AO could not disprove the second Memorandum of Understanding (MoU-2) and failed to bring any substantive evidence on record to establish the 'on-money' payment. Since the co-ordinate bench had affirmed the deletion in the purchaser's case, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition in the assessee's case, which was made on the allegation of receiving the same 'on-money'. The Revenue could not point out any distinguishing fact or law. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This restoration was conditional on the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within a stipulated time. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee irrespective of any delay.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12 was not justified, as Form 10B was already on record when the return was processed under section 143(1). It affirmed that delayed filing of Form 10B is a curable procedural defect and exemption cannot be denied on such technical grounds, citing various High Court and Tribunal precedents. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation without addressing the merits, as the underlying adjustment was contrary to settled law.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits during demonetization were sufficiently explained by the assessee's cash sales and business practices. It also ruled that accretion to partners' capital accounts cannot be assessed as income of the partnership firm.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the provisional registration (Form 10AC) as a regular registration (Form 10AB), valid for five years from 01/04/2021, acknowledging the prevailing confusion. Consequently, the rejection of the 80G approval was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper enquiries and considered the evidence, including affidavits and disclosures by Shri Sanjay Shah taking ownership of the transactions, before making a conscious decision. The mere fact that the AO did not make an addition or elaborately discuss the issue in the assessment order does not render it erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, provided due application of mind is demonstrated. Thus, the PCIT's revisionary order u/s 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee successfully demonstrated that the investment amount was sourced from income earned in Dubai, which was subsequently transferred to India. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the addition for unexplained investment made by the lower authorities was not justified and ordered its deletion.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to properly represent the case and decided to remand all identical appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification. The assessee is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperate fully with the re-assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not justified because the addition of Rs. 82,67,778/- made by the AO was not based on the initial reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Citing a Gujarat High Court decision, the Tribunal stated that an addition cannot be made merely on suspicion without proper reasons. As the assessment itself became invalid due to this discrepancy, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity. It ruled that the assessee's objects and activities were charitable in nature, falling under 'preservation of environment,' and thus eligible for exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable, and income applied wholly for charitable purposes does not lose its charitable character merely due to its contractual origin.
The Tribunal held that the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C on the additional income agreed upon in the APA is illegal. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify and grant the claimed TDS credit.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to properly represent the case and decided to remand all identical appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification. The assessee is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperate fully with the re-assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to properly represent the case and decided to remand all identical appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification. The assessee is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperate fully with the re-assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. This was due to the submission of new evidence before the Tribunal and the need for a comprehensive examination of the legal issue regarding the interpretation of 'due date' for claiming deductions.
The ITAT determined that the core dispute regarding the nature of income (business vs. other sources) and the accurate computation of net interest income required further investigation. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The AO is directed to re-examine the issues, reconcile interest income and expenditure, and determine the correct taxable income after affording the assessee due opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal upheld the Principal CIT's order, confirming that the Assessing Officer's failure to properly verify the genuineness of the political donations and the eligibility of donee entities rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The tribunal noted factual discrepancies in donation receipts and distinguished the case from prior precedents cited by the assessee, concluding that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263.
The Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision to restrict weighted deduction for R&D expenses to the extent approved by the DSIR in Form 3CL. However, the AO was directed to consider the assessee's claim for deduction under sections 35(1)(i) & 35(1)(iv) as per the DRP's directions.
The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities, finding the assessee failed to provide a convincing reason for accumulating and re-depositing such large cash amounts, especially when further withdrawals were made. It emphasized that mere prior withdrawals are insufficient; the assessee must prove the cash remained unutilized, and their explanation did not meet the test of human probabilities as held by the Supreme Court in CIT v. P. Mohanakala.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on unutilized government grants, which is mandatorily refundable to the government, retains the character of government funds and should not be treated as independent income. The Tribunal found the reliance on the Visvesvaraya Technological University case misplaced due to differing facts.
The Tribunal held that once cash deposits are duly recorded as sales and business receipts in audited books of account, which have not been rejected, adding the same amount under Section 68 is unsustainable and amounts to double taxation. The disallowance of commission expenses was also deleted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to properly represent the case and decided to remand all identical appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification. The assessee is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperate fully with the re-assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to properly represent the case and decided to remand all identical appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification. The assessee is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperate fully with the re-assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to properly represent the case and decided to remand all identical appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification. The assessee is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperate fully with the re-assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to properly represent the case and decided to remand all identical appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification. The assessee is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperate fully with the re-assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to properly represent the case and decided to remand all identical appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification. The assessee is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperate fully with the re-assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the AO's observation that the expenditure was in cash was factually incorrect, as almost 99% of it was incurred through banking channels and TDS was deducted where applicable. The Tribunal found the ad-hoc disallowance without proper verification to be unjustified.
The Tribunal condoned the 66-day delay in filing the appeal, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee. It directed the CIT (Exemption) to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law, upon production of the cost payment challan.
The Tribunal held that the unutilized IDI/fees and the interest earned thereon were advances from the government for development projects and not taxable income under section 2(24)(xviii) or otherwise. It further ruled that the penalty under section 272A was unjustified as the assessee had submitted proof of compliance with the notices through the Income-tax Department's Portal.
The Tribunal condoned the 14-day delay in filing the appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, with instructions for the CIT(A) to provide a due hearing and for the assessee to participate promptly without causing further delays.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 1640-day delay and noted the assessee's non-cooperation during assessment proceedings. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside both the quantum and penalty orders, remanding the quantum assessment to the AO for a de novo adjudication with a fresh opportunity for the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by applying the profit element principle to a manufacturer and that the credit balance of Rs. 1,01,32,433 was not representative of total purchases. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on factual aspects.
The Tribunal relied on the SEBI finding that SMSTL allotted shares without receiving actual consideration, which demonstrated that the assessee had not made any investment of its own. Citing precedents where the CIT(A) deleted similar additions in identical circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned addition was not sustainable and ordered its deletion.
The Tribunal, to meet the ends of justice, granted the assessee one final opportunity to present its case on merits before the CIT(A), NFAC. This was conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Income Tax Department within two weeks and producing the challan to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the name of Shrimate Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 were void ab initio and a nullity in the eyes of law. The Tribunal noted that the search action was conducted on March 6, 2018, but the assessee company had already converted into an LLP with effect from October 14, 2014. This information was available to the AO from the Director's Report and Financial Statements. The Tribunal observed that when the LLP firm filed its return of income in response to notices under Section 153A for these assessment years, the AO should have continued the assessment in the hands of the LLP, which had a different PAN, rather than in the name of the erstwhile non-existent company. The Tribunal relied on the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, specifically Section 58, which deals with the legal effect of conversion and registration, stating that the company is deemed to be dissolved and removed from the records of the Registrar of Companies upon conversion. Therefore, the assessment on a non-existent entity was not in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the serious consequences, granted one more opportunity. It set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order and restored the matter for de-novo consideration, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and fully cooperating.
The Tribunal held that the unutilized IDI/fees and the interest earned thereon were advances from the government for development projects and not taxable income under section 2(24)(xviii) or otherwise. It further ruled that the penalty under section 272A was unjustified as the assessee had submitted proof of compliance with the notices through the Income-tax Department's Portal.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to furnish full details due to the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown restrictions, and the fact that the creditor company had closed down and was untraceable. Observing that partial details were submitted earlier but not fully considered, and in adherence to natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee another opportunity to present all relevant material.
The Tribunal deemed it in the interests of justice to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to decide the application on merits after affording the assessee a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 509 days, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A), and restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund as costs and was instructed to promptly respond to notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Given that the CIT(A) had already allowed the appeal against the 143(1) intimation on the denial of exemption, the assessee requested to withdraw the present appeal against the 143(3) order, stating it had become infructuous. The Revenue had no objection, and the Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court judgments, held that merely making an incorrect claim, especially when all details are disclosed, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income warranting a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The assessee was in bona fide belief that the interest was revenue expenditure and had disclosed all necessary particulars.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal summarily without considering the submissions and evidence placed by the assessee. The Revenue could not rebut this factual position. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
For both grounds of appeal, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to verify the assessee's separate accounts/computation and the DR's contention regarding the expenses. For the bad debts provision, the AO was directed to verify the claim and allow it if the assessee is entitled under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee a final opportunity to present all necessary documents and explanations. A cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for repeated non-compliance, to be deposited in the "Prime Minister's Relief Fund".