Loading ITAT cases…
297 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal, invoking the Principle of Natural Justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(E). It directed each Assessee Trust to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department within two weeks. Upon production of the cost payment challan, the CIT(E) is instructed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to each trust and pass orders in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal, invoking the Principle of Natural Justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(E). It directed each Assessee Trust to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department within two weeks. Upon production of the cost payment challan, the CIT(E) is instructed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to each trust and pass orders in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal, invoking the Principle of Natural Justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(E). It directed each Assessee Trust to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department within two weeks. Upon production of the cost payment challan, the CIT(E) is instructed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to each trust and pass orders in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the nexus between interest-free funds and the loan given, and that the remuneration paid exceeded the limits prescribed by the partnership deed and Section 40(b) of the Act. The addition for unsecured loan was also sustained due to lack of proof of creditworthiness.
The Tribunal, invoking the Principle of Natural Justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(E). It directed each Assessee Trust to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department within two weeks. Upon production of the cost payment challan, the CIT(E) is instructed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to each trust and pass orders in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal, invoking the Principle of Natural Justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(E). It directed each Assessee Trust to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department within two weeks. Upon production of the cost payment challan, the CIT(E) is instructed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to each trust and pass orders in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263, stating that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries into the fictitious profits and bogus capital losses, despite specific requisitions. The assessee's additional grounds challenging the validity of the Pr. CIT's jurisdiction and the assessment order itself were dismissed, as no evidence was brought on record to show that details of the transactions were filed before the AO during reassessment.
The Tribunal upheld that the purchases from the stated parties were bogus but acknowledged the utilization of materials in the assessee's construction activity. Citing various High Court precedents, it held that only the profit element embedded in such bogus purchases should be taxed. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition by applying a Gross Profit (GP) rate 5% higher than the GP rate disclosed by the assessee on the total bogus purchase amount of Rs. 3,50,55,146/-.
The Tribunal, invoking the Principle of Natural Justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(E). It directed each Assessee Trust to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department within two weeks. Upon production of the cost payment challan, the CIT(E) is instructed to grant one more opportunity of hearing to each trust and pass orders in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue. It noted that past adjustments for goodwill depreciation were deleted by the Tribunal and High Court. It also found that the forfeited deposits were remitted to sales tax authorities and thus not income. Consequently, the PCIT's order u/s 263 was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was negligent in not complying with the CIT(A)'s proceedings, but on merits, considering the additional evidence filed, it was proper to set aside the matter to the AO. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow another opportunity to the assessee to explain the capital gain, subject to payment of cost.
The Tribunal held that the gain on sale of land was to be treated as capital gains, not business income. However, the application of Section 50C was incorrect as it should have considered the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement (banakhat), not the sale deed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, finding that the assessee's suo motu disallowance exceeded the permissible limit. It also upheld the allowance of mine closure expenses, relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the purchases, sales, and profits derived from CCM transactions were already duly accounted for in the assessee's regular books of accounts and reflected in the trading and profit & loss statements. The Tribunal noted that CCM was initiated by the broker, not the assessee, and making separate additions for amounts already disclosed would lead to double taxation. The Revenue failed to controvert these findings.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by mechanically relying on a previous decision without conducting proper factual verification, particularly regarding the assessee's actual role in the transactions and the unexplained cash payment for the car. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to conduct thorough inquiries and scrutinize all relevant records.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention, holding that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of the share application money. The CIT(A) had relied on basic documentary evidence without appreciating the dubious sources of funds for the share applicants.
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer issued only one notice without any record of its service, and the CIT(A) did not provide adequate time for the assessee to submit details. Consequently, the case is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, proper verification, and to ensure the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing in adherence to natural justice principles.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, noting that the assessee provided bank statements and ledger confirmations showing receipt and repayment of loans through banking channels, and the AO failed to present documentary evidence that the loans were dubious. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the assessee had discharged the primary onus under Section 68 by establishing the identity of creditors, genuineness of transactions, and repayment of loans with interest.
The Tribunal found that the assessee maintained regular books of accounts which were not rejected, and its sales and purchases were accepted as genuine. It concluded that the assessee had sufficient cash balance and adequately explained the source of cash deposits from recorded business operations, noting that the increased deposit ratio was primarily due to the demonetization scheme. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits was deemed unsustainable and ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee does not maintain books of account and the credit was reflected in her bank statement. The relationship with the donor and the receipt via banking channels were undisputed. Considering the donor's demise prior to reassessment, requiring further proof of the donor's foreign income was deemed unreasonable. The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.
Since the underlying quantum appeal, which led to the penalty, had already been set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment, the tribunal decided to similarly set aside this penalty appeal under Section 271(1)(c) to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
The Tribunal observed procedural lapses by the lower authorities, noting that the Assessing Officer issued only one notice without confirming service, and the CIT(A) failed to provide adequate time for the assessee to file necessary details. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification, re-adjudication, and to ensure the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing, upholding principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to produce the necessary documents before the CIT(E). Considering the request for an opportunity to submit the documents and the CIT(DR)'s argument, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, with a direction for the assessee to comply with all notices.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted partial details on 29.09.2025, which the CIT(E) did not consider before passing the ex-parte order due to time constraints. Applying the principles of Natural Justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter and remanded it to the CIT(E) for a fresh opportunity of hearing. The assessee is directed to cooperate and provide all necessary details.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to allow one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the necessary documents and re-adjudicate the application. This direction is subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the “Prime Minister's National Relief Fund” within 15 days, acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance.
The Tribunal noted that additional evidences presented by the assessee were crucial but had not been filed before or examined by the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, directing them to duly consider and verify the additional evidences after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The same directions were applied to AY 2019-20.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 was invalid as it was based on "borrowed satisfaction" and mechanical application without independent verification or tangible material by the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded were found to be contrary to the facts (that amounts were loan repayments), making the reassessment void ab initio. Consequently, the addition made u/s 68 was deemed not to survive.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, noting that the AO's remand report confirmed the purchases were duly accounted for in the assessee's books and their source explained. The tribunal ruled that a PAN mismatch in IEC data does not negate the proper accounting of transactions, and thus, the additions for unexplained expenditure were unwarranted. Consequently, the related penalty proceedings were also dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning the additions for unsecured loans and the disallowance of interest, affirming that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders and that no non-business use of borrowed funds was proven. However, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding the employees' PF contribution, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Checkmate Services*, and restored the AO's disallowance as the contributions were not deposited within the statutory due date.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the additional evidence provided by the assessee and that the AO did not provide comments. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the AO to provide proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained as sales/advances duly recorded in the books of account. Violation of RBI notification, if any, does not attract Section 68 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that, as per the proviso to Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, no adjustments should be made without prior intimation to the assessee. Since the Revenue confirmed that no such notice was issued, the adjustment made by the CPC without intimation was deemed invalid in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal noted that additional evidences presented by the assessee were crucial but had not been filed before or examined by the CIT(A). In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh examination, directing them to duly consider and verify the additional evidences after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The same directions were applied to AY 2019-20.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by deleting the entire addition without ensuring the AO had properly verified the creditworthiness, genuineness, and repayment of the fresh unsecured loans. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the matter concerning the additions for fresh unsecured loans (Rs. 3,63,73,694/-) and related interest (Rs. 6,54,650/-) and remanded it to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining a specific report from the AO.
The Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the assessee's non-compliance and imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days. Subject to this payment, the CIT(E) was directed to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the necessary details and documents, and thereafter re-adjudicate the application.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under section 40(a)(i) is only applicable if tax is deductible at source, which the AO failed to establish. Citing precedents (including the assessee's own prior case and Supreme Court judgments), the Tribunal reiterated that commission for services rendered by non-residents outside India for procuring export orders is not taxable in India, thus no TDS obligation arises under section 195 and no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, noting that the AO's remand report confirmed the purchases were duly accounted for in the assessee's books and their source explained. The tribunal ruled that a PAN mismatch in IEC data does not negate the proper accounting of transactions, and thus, the additions for unexplained expenditure were unwarranted. Consequently, the related penalty proceedings were also dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that the deposits, characterized by multiple credits and corresponding debits, represented business transactions and thus only the profit element was taxable. As the assessee had already offered 8% profit on these deposits, no further addition was justified, and the impugned additions made by the AO were deleted. The tax already paid on the declared 8% profit will not be refunded.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Ashish Agrawal and Rajeev Bansal cases and a prior ITAT decision, noted that the Revenue had conceded that reassessment notices for A.Y. 2015-16 issued after April 1, 2021, under TOLA were invalid and time-barred. Accordingly, the reopening of assessment and the consequent assessment order for A.Y. 2015-16 were held to be bad in law and quashed, making other grounds of appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 105 days in filing ITA No. 2476/Ahd/2025, allowing it for statistical purposes, and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. The other appeal, ITA No. 2461/Ahd/2025, being a duplicate, was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 105 days in filing ITA No. 2476/Ahd/2025, allowing it for statistical purposes, and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. The other appeal, ITA No. 2461/Ahd/2025, being a duplicate, was dismissed as infructuous.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, noting that the AO's remand report confirmed the purchases were duly accounted for in the assessee's books and their source explained. The tribunal ruled that a PAN mismatch in IEC data does not negate the proper accounting of transactions, and thus, the additions for unexplained expenditure were unwarranted. Consequently, the related penalty proceedings were also dismissed.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, noting that the AO's remand report confirmed the purchases were duly accounted for in the assessee's books and their source explained. The tribunal ruled that a PAN mismatch in IEC data does not negate the proper accounting of transactions, and thus, the additions for unexplained expenditure were unwarranted. Consequently, the related penalty proceedings were also dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that the deposits, characterized by multiple credits and corresponding debits, represented business transactions and thus only the profit element was taxable. As the assessee had already offered 8% profit on these deposits, no further addition was justified, and the impugned additions made by the AO were deleted. The tax already paid on the declared 8% profit will not be refunded.
The Tribunal ruled that the deposits, characterized by multiple credits and corresponding debits, represented business transactions and thus only the profit element was taxable. As the assessee had already offered 8% profit on these deposits, no further addition was justified, and the impugned additions made by the AO were deleted. The tax already paid on the declared 8% profit will not be refunded.
The Tribunal held that the payment made by the company was a mere withdrawal/repayment of the assessee's own deposit, not a fresh loan or advance. Since the company did not provide any money to the assessee, and his credit balance was merely reduced, the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not attracted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of operating a commission agency business was established by a preponderance of probabilities, supported by the assessee's books of accounts, offering of commission income, and the 'modus operandi' explanation. It noted that a similar issue in the preceding assessment year did not result in an addition. The deposits were considered not the assessee's income but amounts transacted for beneficiaries, with corresponding debit entries.