Loading ITAT cases…
167 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that additions based on uncorroborated loose slips found during search/survey actions, without cogent incriminating material, are not sustainable. The retracted admission of the Managing Director also lacked evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had diligently pursued remedies and that the CPC's disallowance without prior notice violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found the delay to be sufficiently explained and the issue arguable, warranting an opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) inconsistently treated estimated income versus book results. The CIT(A)'s order, which found that the assessee paid more tax than what was agreed upon during the search, was not found to be infirm.
The Tribunal held that additions made by the AO based on loose slips and uncorroborated statements recorded during search are unsustainable. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence, and the AO failed to conduct further inquiries to corroborate the seized material.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 and the order passed under Section 148A(d) were invalid because the approval for issuing the notice was not obtained from the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were also quashed.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding it to be in the interest of justice, citing the precedent of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji. The tribunal remitted the issue of foreign tax credit back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision after due verification, directing the AO to decide the issue as per law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 255 days in filing the appeal before it, considering the mistakes of the counsel. Furthermore, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 124 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), acknowledging the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fear gripping the nation.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held that the presence of 'C' class (nominal) members does not violate the mutuality concept, thus entitling the assessee to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It also confirmed entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s order denying Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was set aside, and the remission to the AO was deemed unnecessary.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not properly considered the facts and documents submitted by the assessee, including financial statements and evidence of running an ITI college. The CIT(E) also failed to provide a personal hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders.
The Tribunal held that additions based on uncorroborated loose slips found during search/survey actions, without cogent incriminating material, cannot be sustained. The retracted admission of the Managing Director also lacked evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to incorrect reasons recorded for reopening. Furthermore, the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, as no tangible evidence of unaccounted sales was found.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed to have submitted documents, they were not submitted before the appropriate authority (CIT(E)). The appeals are remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to submit documents and be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the issue required verification at the Assessing Officer (AO) level. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the jurisdictional AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and allow TDS credit as per law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal based on documents not presented to the AO. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal found that the issues were similar for both assessment years and decided to take them up together. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim for deduction for interest income as per Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and dividend income as per Section 80P(2)(d) was not raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for verification of the statutory requirements for deposit and to consider the deduction claims.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Given this, the Tribunal found no purpose in continuing the appeal proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a non-resident Indian with no e-account on the income tax portal, had a genuine reason for not receiving notices. Although the assessee did not respond to earlier notices, he attempted to explain his case and furnish documents before the DRP after receiving the draft assessment order. The DRP rejected these documents on technical grounds (non-compliance with Rule 9 and late filing) as recorded in paragraphs 4.1.11 and 4.1.12 of its order. The Tribunal found this rejection to be against the principles of natural justice, as the assessee possessed the documents but they were not considered. The Tribunal noted that the facts were similar to a previous case, IT(IT)A No. 2126/Bang/2024, where the Tribunal had set aside the issue to the AO for reconsideration of documents when the DRP had rejected them on technical grounds. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the AO's order and restored the matter to the AO's file. The AO is directed to consider the documents filed by the assessee afresh, pass a fresh draft assessment order, and then a final order. The issue of whether the assessee was heard properly was implicitly decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of 25% GP was arbitrary and unreasonable, considering the nature of the business. The CIT(A) had previously directed the AO to adopt a net profit rate of 12.5% and accepted that hire charges formed part of the total turnover. The Tribunal, considering the profit margins in past years and the nature of the business, directed that the net profit be estimated at 9% of the gross receipts.
The Tribunal condoned the 205-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons (death of tax practitioner, unawareness of e-portal) valid. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not heard before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, both the quantum appeal (ITA No. 2300/Bang/2024) and the penalty appeal (ITA No. 2301/Bang/2024) were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to respond to notices.
The Tribunal found that the issues were similar for both assessment years and decided to take them up together. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim for deduction for interest income as per Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and dividend income as per Section 80P(2)(d) was not raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for verification of the statutory requirements for deposit and to consider the deduction claims.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not properly serving notices on the assessee, especially since the assessee had opted out of email communication. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the Supreme Court decision cited by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after proper notice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not confront the assessee with the findings of his inquiries regarding the vendor's non-existence and cancelled GST registration, denying the assessee an opportunity to present counter-evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had not filed his return of income was incorrect, as the assessee had filed the return in response to the notice u/s 148. Consequently, section 249(4)(b) was wrongly applied.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not confront the assessee with the findings of his inquiries regarding the vendor's non-existence and cancelled GST registration, denying the assessee an opportunity to present counter-evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held that the presence of 'C' class (nominal) members does not violate the mutuality concept, thus entitling the assessee to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It also confirmed entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s order denying Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was set aside, and the remission to the AO was deemed unnecessary.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held that the presence of 'C' class (nominal) members does not violate the mutuality concept, thus entitling the assessee to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It also confirmed entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s order denying Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was set aside, and the remission to the AO was deemed unnecessary.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held that the presence of 'C' class (nominal) members does not violate the mutuality concept, thus entitling the assessee to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It also confirmed entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s order denying Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was set aside, and the remission to the AO was deemed unnecessary.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) inconsistently treated estimated income versus book results. The CIT(A)'s order, which found that the assessee paid more tax than what was agreed upon during the search, was not found to be infirm.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on loose slips and uncorroborated statements recorded during search are unsustainable. The revenue failed to provide cogent evidence to support the noted transactions or corresponding assets.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not heard before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, both the quantum appeal (ITA No. 2300/Bang/2024) and the penalty appeal (ITA No. 2301/Bang/2024) were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to respond to notices.
The Tribunal recorded the submission from the authorized representative and granted permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the withdrawal of the appeal via email dated 17-04-2025, citing her opting for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee had also furnished Form 1 issued by the Department and a challan for the payment of Rs. 3,34,688/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. The Ld. DR did not object to this prayer. After perusing the correspondence and Form 3 issued by the authority, which confirmed the assessee's availing of the VSVS scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The specific grounds of appeal regarding the legality of the CIT(Appeals) order and the levy of penalty were not adjudicated upon as the appeal was withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not properly considered the facts and documents submitted by the assessee, including financial statements and evidence of running an ITI college. The CIT(E) also failed to provide a personal hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders.
The Tribunal held that additions made by the AO based on loose slips and uncorroborated statements recorded during search are unsustainable. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence, and the AO failed to conduct further inquiries to corroborate the seized material.
The Tribunal held that additions made by the AO based on loose slips and uncorroborated statements recorded during search are unsustainable. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence, and the AO failed to conduct further inquiries to corroborate the seized material.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's retraction of admissions made under oath was not substantiated and therefore disregarded. The AO's estimation of income and disallowances were based on seized materials and sworn statements, which were found to be reliable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the present appeal, citing the demise of the assessee's authorized representative and the illness of the previous AR as valid reasons. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanations for non-appearance before the Ld.CIT(A) to be genuine.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The decision was based on the fact that the assessee's offered amounts were not fully deleted and the issue of additional income for referral fees was not raised before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's attempt to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and difficulties with electronic communication. The ex-parte order of the Ld.CIT(A) was set aside and the issue was restored for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed to have submitted documents, they were not submitted before the appropriate authority (CIT(E)). The appeals are remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to submit documents and be heard.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 'other discounts' was not justified as the discounts were allowed at the time of settlement of accounts with customers and were reflected in the audited books. The Tribunal found no material seized during the search to corroborate the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of advances to the subsidiary company is allowable as a business loss under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and also potentially under Section 36(1)(vii) if part of the debt was offered to tax. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of 'other discounts' was not justified as the discounts were allowed at the time of settlement of accounts with customers and were reflected in the audited books. The Tribunal found no material seized during the search to corroborate the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of advances to the subsidiary company is allowable as a business loss under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and also potentially under Section 36(1)(vii) if part of the debt was offered to tax. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.
At the time of hearing, the assessee's counsel indicated contemplation of settlement under the VSV Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to refile if the issue remains unresolved.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search for the impugned assessment year, no addition can be made under section 153A for completed assessments. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were found to be contrary to law and judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the inter-connect service charges paid by Indian telecom operators are not taxable as royalty, following the decisions of the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court in similar cases. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal as they opted to settle the issue under the VSV Scheme, 2024. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, and all required forms were processed. In light of the settlement, and as per the provisions of Section 91(2) of the DTVSV Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.