Loading ITAT cases…
166 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that since only one appeal should be filed for a single issue in an assessment year, ITA 701/CHD/2023 assigned to 'SMC' Bench is considered the valid appeal. ITA 690/CHD/2023 is dismissed as redundant and withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer and dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. The appeals became infructuous due to the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. However, the assessee was given liberty to revive the appeals if they failed to get the full benefit of the scheme due to technicalities.
The Tribunal held that since the interest on enhanced compensation and saving bank interest were received by the legal heir, taxing it in the hands of the legal heir was justified. The Tribunal also found no merit in the grounds related to jurisdiction and the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the Revenue had not duly demonstrated the service of notice and that the assessment order was ex-parte. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order, restoring the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, and also set aside the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were void ab initio as no incriminating material relating to the assessee was found during the search. Consequently, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order sustaining additions based on such proceedings could not be sustained.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had availed the benefit of the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' to resolve the dispute with the Revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the Revenue had not duly demonstrated the service of notice and that the assessment order was ex-parte. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order, restoring the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, and also set aside the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that a second notice for reopening under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued if assessment proceedings from a prior reopening notice for the same assessment year are still pending and have not been terminated. For ITA No. 282/Chd/2023, the Tribunal noted that the reasons for reopening did not specify escapement of income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the seized document primarily showed explained transactions through banking channels. The CIT(A) had correctly estimated commission income based on the confirmed loan broker activities.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the dispute settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' rendered the appeal infructuous. The Tribunal also clarified that the appeal could be revived under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act if the full benefit of the scheme was not availed due to technicalities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO under Section 69A. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the seized document, when read as a whole, indicated that the cheque and RTGS transactions with Apex Fibre India Limited and Rama Traders were explained loan transactions where the assessee acted as a loan broker. The CIT(A) had conducted inquiries under Section 133(6) with these parties, and their confirmations, along with ledger accounts, supported the assessee's version. The Assessing Officer had not responded to the CIT(A)'s queries. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the assessee's explanation for cheque transactions but not for cash transactions within the same document, which was inconsistent. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of commission income at 3% of the total funds as a plausible approach, considering the assessee acted as a broker. For AY 2017-18, the issue was identical, and the CIT(A) had also restricted the addition to estimated commission income. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the Revenue, affirming the orders of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was dismissed and the impugned order was sustained. The Tribunal found that the facts and circumstances of the present case were peculiar, warranting a deeper examination of the capital asset transfer transactions to understand the sudden volatility in the scrip's prices. The Tribunal noted that the scrip 'NCL Research and Financial Services Ltd.' was a penny stock rigged by operators in collusion with the company's directors, who converted black money by providing accommodation entries on a pan-India basis. The Tribunal observed that the company had weak financial fundamentals to justify such a high price. Crucially, the Tribunal noted the absence of mandatory documents like contract notes for the purchase and sale of shares, broker invoices, and a detailed demat statement showing the credit and debit of shares. The Tribunal distinguished the cited case laws, stating that precedents could only be applied if the facts were identical or parimateria. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue had successfully gone behind the transactions to reveal the true picture, and the assessee was not entitled to the LTCG exemption.
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs.3,99,000/- deposited during demonetization could represent past savings, and it is difficult to track yearly savings precisely. Therefore, the assessee's explanation ought to have been accepted.
The Tribunal held that while a charitable institution cannot use surplus funds for purposes other than its objectives, minor violations should not lead to denial of exemption. The AO erred in denying exemption entirely and in taxing the surplus without analytical examination.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to consider the shrinkage allowance for hilly areas, which the assessee was eligible for. The assessee's calculations, considering shrinkage, showed that the claimed losses were within permissible limits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have the requisite authority to invoke jurisdiction for reassessment under Section 147. The reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were found to be lacking in tangible material. Specifically, the reasons mentioned "incriminating documents" and "facts" coming to notice during the survey, and the assessee's admission regarding construction/renovation, but failed to specify the contents of such incriminating material or the basis for believing that income exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/- had escaped assessment. The Tribunal noted that the statement of the assessee regarding construction dates (showroom in 2007, shed from 2012-2015, house construction started in 2013) did not establish the incurrence of expenditure exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/- in the relevant Assessment Year 2012-13, nor did it provide a basis for quantifying escaped income. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's belief was based on suspicion without any tangible basis, and there was no nexus between the material stated in the reasons and the opinion formed regarding the quantification of escaped income. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was set aside as it did not satisfy the conditions specified under Section 147 read with Section 149 of the Act. The reassessment proceedings were also set aside, rendering the grounds raised on merits academic and infructuous. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was due to a typographical error and that the assessee had subsequently obtained condonation from the CIT(E). The Tribunal found that the CPC had not considered the audit report, which was available before the intimation order was passed, and that the denial of exemption was based on a hyper-technical ground.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to consider the shrinkage allowance for hilly areas, which the assessee was eligible for. The assessee's calculations, considering shrinkage, showed that the claimed losses were within permissible limits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity as notices were sent to a wrong email ID. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity and deserved one last chance. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, which allowed the CPC to make disallowances for belated returns, was effective from AY 2021-22. Therefore, for AY 2018-19, the CPC lacked the jurisdiction to disallow the deduction on the ground of a belated return.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's denial was corroborated by documentary evidence, including a power of attorney and payment receipts, showing the property was transferred to and payments made by Mr. Abhishek Gupta and Mr. Darpan Sharma. As no evidence linked the assessee to the transaction, the addition under Section 69 was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and corroborative documentation for the source of the cash deposit. The explanation that the funds originated from the sale of agricultural produce and were deposited within a short period was found to be credible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity and the matter was not decided on merits, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of explanation on merits. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a due opportunity of hearing as the appeal was decided before the expiry of the granted time period. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and resolved the dispute with the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that bank charges are not disallowable under Section 36(1)(iii). Regarding loans and advances, it was found that most were carried forward from the proprietor's business or paid from own funds, not borrowed funds. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided complete details and had the necessary approval for claiming the deduction. The restriction by the AO did not automatically mean the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of land to discharge the loan constituted a capital gain in the relevant assessment year. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made by the AO, as the transaction was correctly treated as a Long Term Capital Gain by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the previous counsel's negligence and the Covid-19 pandemic. On merits, the Tribunal held that a lawful claim cannot be denied due to a clerical error in the return.
The Tribunal noted that the subject matter of the appeal had already been decided by a Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 740/Chd/2023. Therefore, the current appeal was deemed infructuous.
The Tribunal held that issuing repeated notices for the same information does not multiply the default. The explanation of the assessee regarding not being conversant with the e-filing portal was not convincing, but the principle of single default for repeated notices seeking same information was applied. Therefore, the penalty was restricted to one default.
The Tribunal heard both parties and considered the withdrawal application. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR did not object to the withdrawal application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal under specific conditions.
The Tribunal held that income cannot be assumed without basis and must be represented by assets or expenditure. Since no unexplained expenditure or assets were found during the search, and the surrendered income from M/s Sheetal Industries was allocated to various items including partner withdrawals, the addition made by the AO was not justified. The funds withdrawn by partners were available to the assessee. The deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal as the assessee was not interested in pursuing it. The Senior DR did not object to the dismissal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the deficiency notices were issued on a wrong email address, and the assessee was unaware of the defects, thus being prevented by sufficient cause. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding a reasonable cause for delayed filing and admitted the appeal. Given that no findings were recorded on merit, the matter was remitted to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's NRI status, non-receipt of notices, and the COVID-19 pandemic. On merits, it was held that the deposit was explained as a redeposit of cash withdrawn shortly before demonetization, not unexplained income.
The Tribunal held that for invoking Section 14A, the AO must record satisfaction with demonstrable basis that expenses were incurred. In this case, no such satisfaction was recorded, and investments were carried forward from earlier years without fresh deployment.
The Tribunal held that the withdrawals and subsequent redeposits in the bank account, along with estimated agricultural income, explained the deposits, rendering the addition by the AO erroneous. The interest income was also found to be below the taxable threshold.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the previous counsel's negligence and the Covid-19 pandemic. On merits, the Tribunal held that a lawful claim cannot be denied due to a clerical error in the return.
The Assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had granted registration to the Trust under Section 12AB(I)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. DR did not object.
The Tribunal held that the explanation stating 'income' includes 'loss' meant that the assessee's declared loss should be treated as income exceeding Rs. 35 lacs. Therefore, jurisdiction should have remained with the DCIT, not transferred to the ITO, making the assessment order without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observation was incorrect as the assessee had only availed the scheme for a penalty appeal, not the quantum appeal. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the addition itself was deleted and confirmed by the ITAT, there was no basis for invoking Section 263 to question the tax rate applied. Therefore, no action under Section 263 was warranted.
The Tribunal held that considering the declaration of Rs. 10 lacs in the group company to cover irregularities, family savings, and the gift, the source of cash was established. It is difficult to precisely quantify family cash holdings.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of cash payment of salary, holding that the assessee's books of account were not rejected and all entries were below Rs. 10,000 per person. However, the addition for unexplained expenditure was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erroneously set aside the assessment order under Section 251(1)(a) as it was not passed ex-parte or under Section 144. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merit. The penalty appeal was dependent on the quantum appeal.