Loading ITAT cases…
169 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order dated 24.9.2024 was barred by limitation. The undisputed facts showed that the DRP directions were issued on 29.7.2024 and were uploaded on the ITBA system on the same date. The assessee also received these directions via email on 29.7.2024, with the AO and TPO being marked as recipients. Section 144C(13) mandates that the AO shall complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP directions are received. Therefore, considering 29.7.2024 as the date of receipt (whether by uploading or email), the time limit for passing the assessment order expired on 31.8.2024. As the assessment order was passed on 24.9.2024, it was beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal, relying on judicial precedents and in the absence of any contrary details from the Revenue regarding the AO's actual date of receipt, quashed the impugned assessment order. Ground No. 2 of the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that while filing Form 10B within the due date is mandatory for claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, the CPC incorrectly computed the real income by not allowing benefits of expenditure incurred by the assessee.
For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal is allowed. The Tribunal found substance in the Revenue's arguments, noting that the assessee admitted the amount as undisclosed income during the survey and was unable to explain the source of investment in the excess stock. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's inability to explain the source of investment, despite being asked by the bench, supported the Revenue's claim. The case laws relied upon by the assessee were deemed distinguishable. The CIT(A) was considered to have wrongly applied the judgments. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal found that purchases and sales were recorded up to the date of the survey, and the stock discrepancies were due to maintenance issues. The amounts declared by the assessee were considered part of the business activity. The Tribunal noted that the assessee declared it as regular income, not undisclosed income, unlike in AY 2017-18. Therefore, the AO was not correct in treating it as income under Section 69B. The case laws relied upon by the assessee were found applicable, and the Revenue could not bring adverse material. The Tribunal's decision for AY 2017-18 was to allow the Revenue's appeal, and for AY 2020-21, to dismiss the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for Rs. 11,35,023/- as cost of acquisition, partly allowed the cost of improvement claim by disallowing Rs. 5,49,644/-, and dismissed the claim for travel and courier expenses as sale expenses.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E of the Act was not applicable for the period in question, based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal and refusal to condone the delay was considered unjust.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 54 of the Act, it is not necessary for the assessee to take possession of the property or have the purchase deed registered within the stipulated timelines. The crucial factor is whether the capital gains received have been invested in a residential house. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had invested more than the capital gains arising from the sale of the residential house towards the purchase of another residential house within the prescribed time. The Tribunal also observed that almost full payment for the new property was made within the same month of the sale, establishing a clear nexus between the sale consideration and the utilization for the new property. The inability to obtain registration and possession within two years was attributed to reasons beyond the assessee's control, given her residence in the United States. Citing judicial precedents, including CIT v. R.L. Sood and CIT v. Sambandam Udaykumar, the Tribunal concluded that the exemption claimed under Section 54 is justified. The AO was directed to grant the exemption as claimed by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that for unabated/completed assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during search. Since no such material was found, the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill and consequential assessments were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) did not go into the merits of the case. Considering the materials available, no further investigation was required, and the addition made by the AO was not justified as it pertained to a different financial year.
The Tribunal held that for completed/unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. The AO cannot make additions based on other materials available to him in the absence of such incriminating evidence.
The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report (Form 10CCB) is a procedural requirement and substantial compliance is sufficient. The assessee had filed the report and the revised return within the prescribed time, and the ratio of the Wipro Ltd. case was not applicable here.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E of the Act was not applicable for the period in question, based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal and refusal to condone the delay was considered unjust.
The Tribunal held that the levy of fees under Section 234E of the Act was not applicable for the period in question, based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal and refusal to condone the delay was considered unjust.
For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal is allowed. The Tribunal found substance in the Revenue's arguments, noting that the assessee admitted the amount as undisclosed income during the survey and was unable to explain the source of investment in the excess stock. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's inability to explain the source of investment, despite being asked by the bench, supported the Revenue's claim. The case laws relied upon by the assessee were deemed distinguishable. The CIT(A) was considered to have wrongly applied the judgments. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal found that purchases and sales were recorded up to the date of the survey, and the stock discrepancies were due to maintenance issues. The amounts declared by the assessee were considered part of the business activity. The Tribunal noted that the assessee declared it as regular income, not undisclosed income, unlike in AY 2017-18. Therefore, the AO was not correct in treating it as income under Section 69B. The case laws relied upon by the assessee were found applicable, and the Revenue could not bring adverse material. The Tribunal's decision for AY 2017-18 was to allow the Revenue's appeal, and for AY 2020-21, to dismiss the Revenue's appeal.
For ITA No.814/Bang/2025, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue of opening balance back to the AO for verification, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. For ITA No.815/Bang/2025, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the Tribunal later if the relief granted was challenged by the Revenue, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the issue of depreciation on intangible assets and the validity of assessments under section 153A. It also examined whether the additions made were based on incriminating material found during the search, referencing Supreme Court decisions on the matter.
The Tribunal held that for unabated/completed assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during search. Since no such material was found, the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill and consequential assessments were not justified.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's arguments and remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that for unabated/completed assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during search. Since no such material was found, the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill and consequential assessments were not justified.
For ITA No.814/Bang/2025, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue of opening balance back to the AO for verification, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. For ITA No.815/Bang/2025, the assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the Tribunal later if the relief granted was challenged by the Revenue, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for Rs. 11,35,023/- as cost of acquisition, partly allowed the cost of improvement claim by disallowing Rs. 5,49,644/-, and dismissed the claim for travel and courier expenses as sale expenses.
The Tribunal held that additions made in Section 153A proceedings without incriminating material are unsustainable, especially for unabated assessment years. It also noted that depreciation on goodwill was allowed in the initial assessment year and not disturbed by the Pr.CIT, suggesting it should be allowed for subsequent years.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient reasons. The Tribunal found that certain amounts claimed by the assessee as income from accumulated savings, loan from a tenant, and loan from her son were not properly considered. The Tribunal directed the deletion of additions made on these grounds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The assessee had discharged the primary onus by submitting affidavits from buyers, which the AO failed to disprove or corroborate. The AO's estimation based on generic data without disproving the assessee's evidence was found unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was not pursued by the appointed liquidator and no amended Form 36B was filed. The Managing Director becomes functus officio upon liquidation, and only the liquidator can pursue the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 and AY 2011-12, citing the assessee's prolonged illness and heart surgery as sufficient reasons. The appeal for AY 2019-20 was found to be filed in time.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed under section 144 and penalty proceedings were initiated under section 272A(1)(d). Since the basis for the penalty initiation was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration concerning the quantum addition, the penalty appeal was also to be remitted for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 and AY 2011-12, citing sufficient cause due to the assessee's prolonged illness and surgery. The appeal for AY 2019-20 was considered filed in time.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 due to the assessee's ill-health and procedural complexities. The appeals for AY 2019-20 and AY 2011-12 were found to be in time.
The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., 431 ITR 1. The Tribunal noted that the assessee has not dealt with any persons other than its members, thus there is no question of denying the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal cited paragraph 45 of the Mavilayi decision, which states that Section 80P provisions are benevolent and Section 80P(4) is 'out of harm's way'. The Supreme Court also held that nominal members are members. The Tribunal found that all assessees like the one before it are entitled to the benefit of deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's analysis of Section 80P(4) and its intent to exclude only co-operative banks licensed by the RBI. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and directed the AO to delete the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P for both years.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 and AY 2011-12, citing the assessee's prolonged illness and recent heart surgery as sufficient cause. The appeal for AY 2019-20 was found to be filed in time.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 was for sufficient reason due to the assessee's ill-health and subsequent hospitalization, including heart surgery. The appeals for AY 2019-20 and AY 2011-12 were found to be filed in time. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to reconsider the delay based on the complete medical records and decide the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 and AY 2011-12, citing sufficient cause due to the assessee's prolonged illness and surgery. The appeal for AY 2019-20 was found to be filed in time.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not credit his capital account twice in his financial statements, and the duplication was only in the income tax return filing. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for AYs 2013-19 and AY 2011-12, citing the assessee's prolonged illness and heart surgery as sufficient cause. The appeal for AY 2019-20 was considered filed in time.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide substantiating documents to the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19, accepting the assessee's illness as a sufficient reason, supported by an affidavit and medical history. The appeal for AY 2019-20 was found to be in time, and the appeal for AY 2011-12 was also admitted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it has transacted only with its members. The Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. was found to be squarely in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the bank accounts, although in the assessee's name, were operated, used, and owned by the partnership firm. Since the funds originated from the firm's regular income and were reflected in its accounts, the addition of Rs. 9.50 lakhs as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee was unjustified.
The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing adjustment issue back to the AO for re-examination, directing the assessee to substantiate the similarity of functions, assets, and risks between AE and non-AE transactions. It also directed the AO to re-evaluate interest on overdue receivables and unbilled revenue, considering working capital adjustments and proper interest rates.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was for sufficient reason. The assessee's circumstances, including being a driver unaware of tax proceedings and issues with receiving notices, were considered. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee faced adverse personal circumstances, including the death of his son and deteriorating health, which affected his ability to respond to notices and appear before the lower authorities. The Tribunal observed that the books of account were audited and no defects were pointed out.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits of Rs. 7,46,500 were accounted for as sales in the audited books and could not be treated as unaccounted income. Regarding the lorry purchase, the Tribunal found no inflation of asset cost or unaccounted income, and the cash payment was duly accounted for and returned.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the assessment order was barred by limitation (Ground No. 1) was not argued and thus dismissed. Regarding TP adjustments, the Tribunal restored the issue of granting working capital adjustment to the AO/TPO for verification (Ground No. 8). Consequently, the adjustment on account of interest on overdue receivables (Ground No. 13) was subsumed within the working capital adjustment decision. For corporate guarantee (Ground No. 12), the Tribunal found no infirmity in considering it an international transaction but directed the AO/TPO to compute the ALP at 0.5% of the guaranteed amount, considering judicial precedents and the lack of subsidiary company accounts or credit rating. Ground No. 17 concerning short grant of TDS was allowed, directing the AO to grant credit of Rs. 41,840/- after verification. Grounds No. 18 (consequential interest) and 19 (initiation of penalty proceedings) were dismissed as consequential and premature, respectively. All other grounds were also dismissed as not argued. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal on payment of costs. Following its own previous order for the A.Y. 2017-18 concerning the same property, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO, stating that the investigation report was not confronted and the basis for estimation was not brought out by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and not on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the legal grounds raised by the assessee concerning the search and assessment proceedings, deeming them general in nature. This non-adjudication was considered fatal to the order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's socio-economic background. It admitted additional evidence, including sale deeds and bank statements, which indicated the cash deposits originated from the sale of family property. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the additional evidence and a decision in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs.2,16,892 from the interest income is not justified. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal ruled that interest income earned by a primary agricultural credit co-operative society on its investments, including reserve funds, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal noted that the AO himself allowed 89.14% of the deduction, making the disallowance of the balance 10.86% unjustified. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the full deduction of Rs.12,05,115. Regarding the profit from fertilizers and PDS (Rs.4,36,689), the Tribunal acknowledged that profits from non-member activities are not eligible for deduction under Section 80P. However, it noted the assessee's claim of operational expenses leading to a net trading loss, information not available to the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded this issue to the AO to determine the actual profit from the sale of fertilizers and PDS after examining the operative expenditure and then decide the eligible deduction under Section 80P.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before them, finding it nominal and for a sufficient cause. The Tribunal directed the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) to decide the issue in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause as notices from the CIT(A) were sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.