Loading ITAT cases…
212 orders · Page 2 of 5
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 The Revenue had no objection, and the Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions based on the AO's remand report. Similarly, for the share trading loss, the Tribunal found that the assessee was a regular trader and had provided sufficient evidence, and the AO had not brought specific incriminating evidence against the assessee.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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, considering the facts, restored both appeals to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- for each appeal into the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The CIT(E) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the assessee is responsible for acknowledging future notices.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach to be callous and an abdication of statutory duties, ruling that the appeal should have been decided on merits. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved an opportunity to present its case before the AO. It directed the AO to furnish full details of the alleged accommodation entries to the assessee, and subsequently, the AO would re-adjudicate the matter afresh after considering the assessee's explanations.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal both due to the unexplained delay in filing and on merits. It found no plausible reason for the 657-day delay, nor any evidence of changes in the trust's objects or circumstances since its initial rejection in 2014 to qualify for Section 12A registration.
The Tribunal, considering the facts, restored both appeals to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- for each appeal into the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The CIT(E) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the assessee is responsible for acknowledging future notices.
The Tribunal held that to serve the interests of justice, the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits, conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition on corpus donations as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. Regarding cash deposits, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of fee collections to be substantiated by submitted documents, directing deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Citing a previous order where the issue of 12A registration was restored to the CIT(E), the Tribunal also restored the 80G approval issue to the CIT(E) to be decided along with the 12A application.
The tribunal condoned the 255-day delay in filing the appeal, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee. It directed the CIT(Exemption) to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the matter concerning the 80G(5) registration in accordance with the provisions of law.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. It directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application afresh, granting the assessee trust one more opportunity to furnish all relevant details, contingent on the trust paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the Income Tax Department within two weeks.
The Tribunal accepted the medical emergency as a sufficient cause and condoned the 12-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It directed the CIT(A) to hear the case on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity, and decide the matter in accordance with the law, noting similar cases for co-owners where no additions were made.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment reopening. However, it found that the AO had not disputed the assessee's purchases, and the assessee had disclosed all sales through banking channels, offering the profit element for taxation. Therefore, the tribunal ruled that only the profit element, not the entire sale consideration, could be added, and accordingly deleted the entire addition of Rs.4,34,09,924/-.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for bank deposits, confirming the amount was part of sale consideration already taxed. It also affirmed the deletion of the Section 69 addition, ruling that the DVO incorrectly estimated market value instead of cost of construction and no fresh investment was made in the current year. The ground concerning DVO reference without rejecting books was dismissed as academic.
The Tribunal condoned the 56-day delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to first adjudicate the legal ground concerning the validity of the reassessment notice under section 148, after providing the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh examination. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee another opportunity of hearing to ascertain if any religious expenses were incurred and to give a categorical finding on the applicability of Section 80G(5B).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had conducted inquiries, and the PCIT's revision was based on a change of opinion rather than a lack of inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had conducted inquiries, and the PCIT's revision was based on a change of opinion rather than a lack of inquiry.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that a meritorious case should not be dismissed on limitation grounds, but was not convinced by the assessee's explanation for non-compliance before lower authorities. It imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits of the interest expense claim, allowing another opportunity to establish the nexus between interest expense and income.
The ITAT condoned the 334-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of consultant negligence. It found that the return filed on 08.10.2018 was not belated, as the CBDT had extended the due date for AY 2018-19 to 31.10.2018. However, recognizing the assessee's failure to furnish details regarding the 80P claim during assessment, the ITAT set aside the matter and remanded it to the AO to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity to furnish the required details for a merits-based examination.
The CIT(A) found that the assessee had submitted voluminous documentary evidence, including unit-wise break-ups, salary sheets, ledgers, cash books, bank books, and audited income/expenditure accounts, to substantiate its expenses. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO failed to identify any specific defects or lacunae in the submitted evidence and made the disallowance on an ad-hoc basis without proper justification. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s detailed and well-reasoned order, agreeing that the assessee had discharged its onus.
The Tribunal held that the AO's belief of income escaping assessment was a borrowed belief from the ACB report and not his own application of mind. The reasons for reopening did not clearly specify the income that had escaped assessment or identify the assets involved.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had conducted inquiries, and the PCIT's revision was based on a change of opinion rather than a lack of inquiry.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted the assessee's application for withdrawal and confirmed that the Ld. Departmental Representative had no objection. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations, demonstrating banking channel transactions, and establishing the NRI status of two lenders. The absence of loan agreements, interest components, or immediate repayment was not considered sufficient grounds to doubt the genuineness of the loans.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating purchases as bogus solely based on non-response to notices without conducting further enquiry. The assessee had discharged its onus by producing documentary evidence, and the addition was based on presumption.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated with cogent and credible evidence, including audited financial statements, notes to accounts, ledger accounts, and salary slips, that the gratuity amount of Rs. 11,84,163/- was actually paid to the two employees. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) wrongly determined that no evidence was furnished and directed the AO to delete the disallowance.
The tribunal found that neither the CPC nor the CIT(A) had properly verified crucial factual aspects, such as the actual co-ownership share, the terms of the rent agreement, and whether other co-owners had offered their share of income. Concluding that the matter required further examination on merits, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and the CPC's adjustment. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to verify all factual contentions and provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee provided details of bank statements and land extracts showing agricultural income and loans, which explained the cash deposits.
The Tribunal observed that notices were sent to the ex-husband's email and contact details, resulting in improper communication and non-compliance by the assessee. Upholding the principles of Natural Justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte appellate order. The case is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present her case on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present necessary details and clarifications. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant documents and comply with future notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal dismissed grounds 1-4, affirming the validity of the reassessment proceedings. However, it partly allowed grounds 7 and 8 related to the merits of the additions, noting that the AO relied on an Investigation Wing report without independent inquiry or considering the assessee's submitted evidence. Therefore, the issue of the disallowance of donations was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after taking cognizance of the evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the disallowance of Rs. 4,799 for interest paid on TDS, VAT, and Royalty, holding it as statutory expenditure. However, the disallowance of Rs. 42,879 made in cash to MGVCL under Section 40A(3) was allowed, as payments to government bodies are covered by Rule 6DD. The disallowance of Rs. 1,76,102 for interest paid to financial institutions and reimbursed to a partner, being for the firm's business, was also allowed under Section 40(a)(ia). The tribunal ultimately declared the appeal as partly allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) decided the appeal without effective assistance from the assessee, who failed to furnish detailed submissions and evidence. Considering the nature of the issues, including the non-disturbance of opening/closing stock and non-consideration of transport bills, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the entire matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to present all relevant submissions and documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not disputed the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the partners' capital account transactions, supported by agricultural income evidence. It held that the AO erred in treating these as unexplained credits under Section 68 and unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A, as these amounts were already considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the additions made were deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adopted a plausible view based on accounting standards and judicial precedents, and had made full disclosure. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances and repeated rectification attempts. It held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the genuine reasons for the delay. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the FTC claim under sections 90/90(2) as per the Income Tax Act, 1961, after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adopted a plausible view based on accounting standards and judicial precedents, and had made full disclosure. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The ITAT held that the excessive remuneration paid to directors was a device for tax evasion and restored the disallowance of Rs. 2.40 crore. The assessee's cross-objections regarding spray dryer and computer software expenses were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adopted a plausible view based on accounting standards and judicial precedents, and had made full disclosure. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's decision to disallow the expenditure under Section 37 was a legally permissible view. The Principal CIT could not substitute his own view under Section 263 merely because he preferred a different charging provision.