Loading ITAT cases…
185 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court decision in C. Aryama Sundaram (upheld by the Supreme Court), ruled that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 54F. It observed that the payment for the under-construction property was made within the statutory timeframes, and Section 54F does not require the new asset to be acquired with the exact proceeds of the old asset, nor does it preclude construction commencing before the sale of the old property, as long as the investment is within the overall time limits. Consequently, the reassessment order disallowing the deduction was quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the rejection was due to the assessee's non-furnishing of details. It restored the matter to the file of the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to submit all necessary documents. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the assessee for its non-compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the 17-day delay in filing the appeals. It observed that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity to explain the delay in filing the Form 10AB application. Therefore, both the appeals were set aside to the file of the CIT(E) with a directive to grant the assessee another opportunity of hearing to present its case for registration under sections 12AB and 80G.
The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was valid, as the Assessing Officer had tangible material and a live link to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The grounds challenging the jurisdiction were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the 17-day delay in filing the appeals. It observed that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity to explain the delay in filing the Form 10AB application. Therefore, both the appeals were set aside to the file of the CIT(E) with a directive to grant the assessee another opportunity of hearing to present its case for registration under sections 12AB and 80G.
The Tribunal observed that the amount was received from Adarsh Engitech Projects Pvt. Ltd., and the bank statement details provided by the assessee were not considered by the lower authorities. Citing a similar case where the appeal was allowed, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim of being a mere accommodation entry provider was justified, and therefore, the addition made under section 69 could not be sustained. Consequently, both appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the LTCG addition, ruling that the land retained its agricultural character at the time of sale as it was located beyond the prescribed municipal limits for a capital asset, despite being later converted for industrial use by the purchaser. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on previous High Court and ITAT judgments. The assessee's legal grounds challenging the validity of the re-opening and jurisdiction were deemed academic and kept open for future consideration.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Ashish Agrawal and Rajeev Bansal, and Jurisdictional High Court judgments, found that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the prescribed limitation period. The original notice was issued on 29-06-2021, whereas the last date for valid issuance, considering the proviso to Section 149 and TOLA, was 21-06-2022. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were held to be invalid and without jurisdiction, and the entire reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the LTCG addition, ruling that the land retained its agricultural character at the time of sale as it was located beyond the prescribed municipal limits for a capital asset, despite being later converted for industrial use by the purchaser. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on previous High Court and ITAT judgments. The assessee's legal grounds challenging the validity of the re-opening and jurisdiction were deemed academic and kept open for future consideration.
The Tribunal observed that the entire sale proceeds were treated as capital gain without considering the cost of acquisition. It directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to consider the cost of acquisition as claimed by the assessee and recompute the long-term capital gain in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The matter was accordingly remitted to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the issue of granting TDS credit necessitated proper verification and reconciliation between the receipts reflected in Form 26AS and the income offered to tax in the return. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification of the TDS claim as per the provisions of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, refusing to condone the 17-month delay as the assessee's counsel could not explain the delay or provide evidence of filing the Return of Income. Consequently, the penalties levied under sections 271(1)(b) and 271F for non-compliance and failure to furnish return were confirmed.
The ITAT held that the provision for warranty expenses, based on past data and scientific estimation, constitutes an ascertained liability and does not fall within the mischief of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB. Therefore, the addition made by the AO while computing book profit u/s 115JB was unsustainable and directed to be deleted. The tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under normal provisions as it was not controverted.
The Tribunal found no evidence of Rs. 11,55,000/- being deposited in the assessee's individual bank account during demonetization. It ruled that an individual partner cannot be held liable for cash deposits made by a dissolved partnership firm solely on assumption, and thus, the Assessing Officer's addition was incorrect.
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to furnish complete details, clarifications, and evidences. The assessee is directed to comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not merely facilitators but were involved in the fraudulent withdrawal of funds, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The AO's findings of the assessees being beneficiaries of the siphoned amounts were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessees were not merely facilitators but were involved in the fraudulent withdrawal of funds, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The AO's findings of the assessees being beneficiaries of the siphoned amounts were confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, refusing to condone the 17-month delay as the assessee's counsel could not explain the delay or provide evidence of filing the Return of Income. Consequently, the penalties levied under sections 271(1)(b) and 271F for non-compliance and failure to furnish return were confirmed.
The ITAT held that the provision for warranty expenses, based on past data and scientific estimation, constitutes an ascertained liability and does not fall within the mischief of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB. Therefore, the addition made by the AO while computing book profit u/s 115JB was unsustainable and directed to be deleted. The tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under normal provisions as it was not controverted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation as genuine. Noting that the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the case on its merits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary documents and comply with future notices.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's difficulties due to their AR's demise, remanded the case to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents and comply with future notices.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the core issue pertained to the gross profit rate of 28% applied on the alleged undisclosed turnover of Rs.16,80,367/-, resulting in an addition of Rs.4,70,503/-. The assessee argued that this was done without pointing out any defect in the audited accounts under Section 44AB and without citing comparable cases. The revenue did not contest this point. Both parties submitted that the gross profit rate of 28% could be reduced to 23%. The Tribunal found this proposition acceptable and directed the Assessing Officer to adopt a gross profit rate of 23% instead of 28% for the purpose of assessment. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the other grounds raised by the assessee, such as the absence of defects in books, lack of incriminating material, or the validity of the assessment under Section 153A in the absence of specific findings on these points, focusing solely on the agreed reduction in the gross profit rate.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). It was held that major additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted in quantum proceedings, and the sustained additions involved highly debatable issues with full disclosure by the assessee. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that mere unsustainable claims or debatable issues, especially with complete disclosure, do not warrant penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the 739-day delay in filing the appeal, observing that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without deciding on merits due to the assessee's non-attendance. Recognizing the assessee as a farmer, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to present evidence and adjudicate the case on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the failure to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 270A(2)(b) for not filing the original return of income makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the revisionary order passed by the PCIT directing the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A is upheld.
The Tribunal observed that the CBDT had extended the deadline for filing Form 10AB and that the CIT(E) now has the power to condone delays. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside both appeals, remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) with a directive to condone the delay, re-examine the regular registration application on its merits, and then re-adjudicate the 80G(5) approval.
The Tribunal observed that the CBDT had extended the deadline for filing Form 10AB and that the CIT(E) now has the power to condone delays. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside both appeals, remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) with a directive to condone the delay, re-examine the regular registration application on its merits, and then re-adjudicate the 80G(5) approval.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had failed to provide necessary details and explanations to both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. Considering the counsel's request for a fresh opportunity, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documents, evidence, and bank details, and to comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of alleged 'on money' payment of Rs. 75,19,000/- was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the AO's conclusion was based on an excel sheet found during a search on HN Safal Group. However, upon examining the details, the Tribunal found a lack of correlation between the cheque payments as recorded in the excel sheet and the actual cheque payments made by the assessee as per the registered sale deed and the assessee's own ledger. Specifically, the total cheque payment recorded in the excel sheet till 21.01.2012 was Rs. 46,50,000/-, while the sale deed indicated only Rs. 40,00,000/- paid by that date. This discrepancy in cheque payments cast doubt on the reliability of the cash payment figures in the excel sheet. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the admission by HN Safal Group before the Settlement Commission was general and did not categorically mention the assessee's name individually. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the addition was based on presumptions and not on actual correlation of payments, and there was no direct or indirect evidence to prove that the cash payment shown in the excel sheet was actually paid by the assessee to the developer. The addition was accordingly deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The assessee mistakenly informed the CIT(A) that its appeal became infructuous due to a Section 263 order setting aside the *entire* assessment, leading the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal. The Tribunal clarified that only one disallowance was set aside under Section 263, and the other additions required adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to present submissions and evidence for a decision on merits regarding the remaining additions.
The ITAT observed that the Audit Report in Form 10B was filed timely but the CPC did not consider it while denying the exemption. Invoking principles of natural justice, the ITAT set aside the matter and remanded it to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to reconsider the Audit Report and decide the exemption claim on merits, after providing the assessee another opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of all documents and a fresh adjudication of the issues, ensuring the assessee is provided an opportunity of hearing.
Since the assessee did not wish to pursue the appeal and had requested its withdrawal, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without verifying if notices were received by the assessee and without providing a separate finding on the merits of the case. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication and verification of issues.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some details of cash deposits and alleged reimbursements, these required verification by the Assessing Officer. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the details of amounts received, repaid, and the percentage of repayments.