Loading ITAT cases…
105 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the delay was not inordinate and not intentional. The Tribunal held that disputes should be decided on merits and the assessee should be given an opportunity to contest the additions. Therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex parte, and the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to present its case. Considering the submissions and the lack of objection from the revenue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) filed a withdrawal application dated 06/01/2026, stating that instructions were received from the assessee to withdraw the appeal considering the small quantum of demand involved. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection to this request. The Tribunal, having perused the withdrawal application and heard both sides, allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the additions proposed by the AO and confirmed by the DRP, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed carried out activities not in consonance with its stated charitable objects. The Tribunal found that providing funds to profit-making entities without evidence of services rendered did not qualify as an application of income for charitable purposes, thus upholding the cancellation of registration.
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance of seminar and convention expenses and to delete the double disallowance of gratuity provision. Interest and penalty grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were not justified. The Tribunal found that the additions were based on loose sheets and software data found during the survey, which were not corroborated by any other material. The assessees argued that these documents were not reliable and did not establish any unaccounted income or transactions. The Tribunal agreed with the assessees that the survey proceedings did not unearth any specific assets or investments that could be directly linked to the alleged unaccounted turnover. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the loose sheets pertained to AY 2020-21, making their use for additions in AY 2017-18 questionable. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions made on account of alleged unaccounted turnover.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded during a survey or on loose sheets without corroborative evidence. The estimation of sales turnover based on limited data and without proper verification was also found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded during a survey or on loose sheets without corroborative evidence. The estimation of sales turnover based on limited data and without proper verification was also found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded during a survey or on loose sheets without corroborative evidence. The estimation of sales turnover based on limited data and without proper verification was also found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of generating and supplying solar power, even though it contributes to environmental preservation, was primarily a commercial venture benefiting Infosys Ltd, and not for the benefit of the public at large. Therefore, it did not qualify as a charitable purpose under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 41(1) was not justified as it was not proven that the outstanding liabilities were previously claimed as allowances or deductions. The mere fact that the dues were long outstanding and potentially barred by limitation did not automatically make them taxable income.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 41(1) was not justified as it was not proven that the outstanding liabilities were previously claimed as allowances or deductions. The mere fact that the dues were long outstanding and potentially barred by limitation did not automatically make them taxable income.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded during a survey or on loose sheets without corroborative evidence. The estimation of sales turnover based on limited data and without proper verification was also found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded during a survey or on loose sheets without corroborative evidence. The estimation of sales turnover based on limited data and without proper verification was also found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in filing the appeal and the lack of justification for it. It also observed that the assessee failed to provide the required confirmation letter for the unsecured loan from the creditor to the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal. Given the repeated non-appearance and failure to produce essential documents, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of statements recorded during a survey or on loose sheets without corroborative evidence. The estimation of sales turnover based on limited data and without proper verification was also found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the presence of nominal members, as permitted by the Karnataka Societies Act, 1959, does not disentitle a co-operative society from claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities' orders were not in accordance with Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the entire addition was based on loose sheets and software data found during the survey. However, the assessees contended that these documents pertained to the Assessment Year 2020-21, while the additions were made for earlier assessment years (2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21). The Tribunal found this discrepancy significant. If the documents related to AY 2020-21, they could not form the basis for additions in earlier years without further corroboration. The Tribunal emphasized that additions must be based on cogent evidence and cannot be made on mere suspicion or surmise. Since the primary evidence cited for the additions was allegedly from a different assessment year, the Tribunal concluded that the additions were not supported by the necessary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the additions made on account of alleged unaccounted turnover. The ratio decidendi is that additions based on documents pertaining to a different assessment year, without further corroboration, are invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of generating and supplying solar power, even though it contributes to environmental preservation, was primarily a commercial venture benefiting Infosys Ltd, and not for the benefit of the public at large. Therefore, it did not qualify as a charitable purpose under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A) were based on loose sheets and software data found during the survey. The assessees contended that these materials were unreliable and lacked corroboration. The Tribunal noted that the grounds of appeal raised by the assessees primarily challenged the validity of these additions due to the alleged lack of corroborative evidence and the nature of the survey findings. The Tribunal's decision on these grounds would determine whether the additions were sustainable. The judgment excerpt does not contain the Tribunal's final decision or reasoning on these issues, nor does it mention any specific operative directions or issues left undecided. The provided text cuts off before the Tribunal's findings are elaborated.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the survey proceedings did not unearth any specific assets, investments, or expenditures that could be directly linked to the alleged unaccounted turnover. The reliance on loose sheets and software data, which were not corroborated by any other evidence, was found to be insufficient to establish the existence of unaccounted turnover. The Tribunal emphasized that additions cannot be made on the basis of suspicion or presumption. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the loose sheets used for additions in AY 2017-18 pertained to AY 2020-21, rendering the basis of the addition flawed. Consequently, the additions made on account of alleged unaccounted turnover were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) were not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the survey proceedings did not unearth any specific unaccounted income or assets. The additions were based on loose sheets and software data containing figures, but nothing was ascertained from these documents. The Tribunal emphasized that additions cannot be made on the basis of suspicion, surmise, or presumptions without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the loose sheets found during the survey pertained to AY 2020-21, and therefore, making additions for AY 2017-18 based on these documents was not justified. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The Tribunal noted that the period of delay was not inordinate and that the reasons provided by the assessee, including the intervening holidays and the illness of their authorized representative, were acceptable. The Tribunal emphasized that the purpose of the Act is to assess income and that technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,84,00,000, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash creditors. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not pointed out any specific discrepancies in the documents produced by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. The ratio decidendi is that when a party demonstrates reasonable cause for delay and has a strong prima facie case, the appellate tribunal should condone the delay to ensure justice. Furthermore, the onus under Section 68 is discharged if the assessee proves the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, which the assessee in this case had done.
The Tribunal noted that the survey was conducted on 24/02/2020. The assessees argued that the additions were based on loose sheets and software data found during the survey, which pertained to AY 2020-21, and that no corroborative material was brought on record. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on the gross profit rate derived from these documents. However, the Tribunal found that the loose sheets and software data were not properly identified or authenticated, and their relevance to the assessment years under appeal was questionable. The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of suspicion or presumption without concrete evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the survey proceedings did not unearth any specific assets or expenditures that could be directly linked to the alleged concealed income for the assessment years in question. Therefore, the Tribunal found the additions to be unjustified. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the additions made by the AO based on the gross profit rate applied to the alleged unaccounted turnover. The Tribunal found that the additions were made solely on the basis of loose sheets and software data found during the survey, which were not corroborated by any other evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that such additions, based on estimations and assumptions without concrete proof of suppressed turnover or undisclosed income, are unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the survey proceedings themselves did not unearth any specific assets, investments, or expenditures that could be directly linked to the alleged concealed income. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) for all the assessees and assessment years under appeal. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal found that the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were for want of evidence, depreciation, negative cash balance, and project costs. For AY 2018-19 and 2019-20, some issues were not adjudicated by the CIT(A) or additions were confirmed for want of evidence despite the assessee claiming adequate evidence was filed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for unexplained expenditure (Rs. 37,84,963 for AY 2014-15) and unexplained investment (Rs. 39,47,000 for AY 2015-16) were justified. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities and noted the lack of evidence provided by the assessee to counter the additions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was correct in treating the assessee as a resident of India for the assessment year 2020-21. The Tribunal found that the assessee's argument regarding his residential status was challenged by the AO and DRP, and their opinion was upheld. The Tribunal clarified that the phrase 'in the first instance' in Section 144C(1) refers to the claim made by the assessee in his Return of Income regarding his residential status, and the draft assessment order was correctly based on this. Consequently, Ground No. 7 of the appeal, concerning the inconsistency in the draft assessment order, was dismissed. Ground No. 8 was not pressed and dismissed. Ground No. 9 was not argued independently and dismissed. Regarding Ground No. 10, concerning the refund of ₹5,81,80,852, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the assessee had indeed not received the refund and to take necessary action to issue the refund within 60 days if not received. Thus, Ground No. 10 was allowed. Grounds No. 11 and 12, concerning interest under Sections 234A and 234B and initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A, were dismissed as consequential and premature, respectively. The Tribunal noted that the facts of the present case were different from the case cited by the assessee's representative.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided ledger extracts of the property purchase and drawings account showing cash withdrawals. However, since these were not produced before the AO, the issue was remitted back to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's (AO) reasons for reopening the assessment contained a factual inaccuracy stating that the assessee had not filed a return of income, while the assessee had indeed filed its return. Relying on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Sagar Enterprises, the Tribunal found that a reopening based on an incorrect factual premise invalidates the formation of belief required under Section 147/148, and Section 292B cannot cure such a jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for unexplained expenditure (Rs. 37,84,963 for AY 2014-15) and unexplained investment (Rs. 39,47,000 for AY 2015-16) were justified. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities and noted the lack of evidence provided by the assessee to counter the additions.
The Tribunal found that the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were for want of evidence, depreciation, negative cash balance, and project costs. For AY 2018-19 and 2019-20, some issues were not adjudicated by the CIT(A) or additions were confirmed for want of evidence despite the assessee claiming adequate evidence was filed.
The Tribunal found that the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were for want of evidence, depreciation, negative cash balance, and project costs. For AY 2018-19 and 2019-20, some issues were not adjudicated by the CIT(A) or additions were confirmed for want of evidence despite the assessee claiming adequate evidence was filed.
The Tribunal noted that the same issue for earlier assessment years had been decided in favor of the assessee by a Coordinate Bench. The Tribunal found no change in circumstances and no new material evidence presented by the Revenue to deviate from the previous ruling.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, comprising Annexures 1 to 6, which were filed for the first time before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found good and sufficient reason for not filing these documents earlier, noting the assessee's non-resident status, business in Saudi Arabia, and lack of regular income in India, which made collation of details difficult. Since the Assessing Officer had not had an opportunity to examine these additional evidences, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, remitted the entire issue in dispute back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the additional evidences and decide the issue in light of them, after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the substantive issue of the addition itself, pending the AO's fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided ledger extracts of the property purchase and drawings account showing cash withdrawals. However, since these were not produced before the AO, the issue was remitted back to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly restored the issue to the AO/TPO to follow ITAT's directions, as they were not previously followed. The Tribunal also found the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessing Officer to be contradictory.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a deceased assessee, when the AO was aware of the death, is void-ab-initio. The AO has a statutory duty to include the legal heirs in such cases.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute concerning the disallowance under section 43B of the Act, relating to interest payments, required proper verification of facts. The assessee had indicated differences between interest claimed in its books and interest reflected in bank certificates due to timing and reconciliation issues. The assessee offered to furnish complete loan-wise reconciliation, bank statements, and interest computation. The Revenue did not object to restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination, provided the assessee cooperated. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the assessee's claim afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to furnish complete details. The issue raised in Ground No. 6 regarding disallowance of water cess expenses was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. The issue of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was dismissed as consequential and infructuous. The Tribunal did not decide the issue regarding the ALP of bagasse supply.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, held that the remeasurement gain on defined employee benefit plan should be treated as operating. The issue of foreign exchange loss was not pressed by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has previously held in similar cases that income attributable to the business of a co-operative society providing credit facilities to its members is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal found the facts of the present case to be similar to these precedents.
The Tribunal held that the rejection order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to the assessee, denying them an opportunity to explain. The Tribunal also noted that Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing an adverse order.
The Tribunal noted that judicial discipline requires following the decisions of higher authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to pass an order in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ITA No.162 of 2020 and decide in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to appear before the CIT(A) because hearing notices were sent to a wrong email ID. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remitted for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed for non-admission due to alleged deficiencies in the appeal filing, specifically regarding the payment of appeal fees. The CIT(A)/NFAC observed that sufficient opportunities were given to the appellant to remove the deficiencies, but they failed to do so, rendering the appeal not maintainable under Section 249(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the present appeal before it and the assessee's petition for condonation of delay. However, the provided extract of the judgment does not contain the Tribunal's final decision on the merits of the case or the outcome of the condonation of delay petition. The Tribunal's finding is limited to the procedural dismissal by the lower appellate authority.
The Tribunal held that an appeal lies only against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), not against an order giving effect to such an order by the AO. Since the assessee did not challenge the AO's order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order before the CIT(A), the present appeal before the Tribunal was deemed not maintainable.
Following the deletion of the impugned addition, the assessee filed an application to withdraw the appeal, stating it had become infructuous. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted the rectification order and that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Accordingly, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation regarding the inability to deposit funds due to the RBI ban on Amanath Co-operative Bank was plausible. Although the AO observed a lack of sufficient documentation at the time, the Tribunal found that the assessee had produced various records supporting the source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the matter to the AO for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee demonstrated a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit reports, considering his and his auditor's health issues and lack of computer proficiency. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the sufficient cause presented by the assessee due to severe and documented health problems. The appeals were admitted for hearing on merits.