Loading ITAT cases…
158 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal ruled that the AO failed to prove how the income, which the assessee had voluntarily offered from regular business sources, was unexplained. Since no incriminating material was found during the search, the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable, and the income should be assessed at the regular rate.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the AO under Section 40A(2)(b) were not sustainable as the interest paid at 12% was below the market rate and the AO failed to establish the market rate for purchases from related parties. Adhoc disallowances on miscellaneous expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's primary argument was the violation of principles of natural justice, as they were unrepresented during the revisionary proceedings. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not refer the matter to DVO without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. Furthermore, the benefit of self-supervision and concessions for CPWD rates were to be allowed, resulting in no addition for unexplained investment.
The Tribunal held that since the Revenue had accepted GTIPL's ownership of the cash before the Settlement Commission and the settlement is final and binding under Section 245D of the Act, it is impermissible for the Revenue to take a contradictory stand. The cash considered as undisclosed income of GTIPL cannot be taxed again in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices without examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case, recognizing the possibility of communication gaps in the faceless assessment regime.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that dismissal on technical grounds would cause irreparable loss. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, and the penalty appeal was also restored for fresh decision.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 3% of total receipts, similar to previous years where similar appeals were dismissed. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the date of transfer for capital gains purposes should be reckoned from the date of the agreement to sell, especially when substantial rights are transferred and part payment has occurred. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the AO to re-verify the assessee's claims regarding share, investment, and indexed cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal condoned a three-day delay in filing the appeal. Upon reviewing the bank statements and certificates, the Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee had explained the source of the loan and the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on Supreme Court rulings regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal held that the matter was not properly examined on merits and restored it to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, emphasizing the need to consider the assessee's role as a business correspondent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on certain payments as per Sections 194A(1) and 194C(2). Regarding interest disallowances, the Tribunal found that the loans were utilized for business purposes and the assessee had sufficient own capital, thus no interest disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on contractual payments should be restored to the AO for the assessee to prove their case regarding the payee offering income to tax. The disallowance of refreshment expenses was deleted. The disallowance for cash payments under Section 40A(3) was restricted to 20% as directed by the CIT(A). The addition for closing stock valuation was deleted as it was a matter of valuation. The disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted due to lack of evidence of diversion of funds for non-business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the advances lost during the course of normal business activities are allowable as general business deductions under Section 37(1), even if specific conditions of Section 36(2) and Section 36(1)(vii) are not met.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 9 Lacs, related to additional payment for flooring and furnishing, was for work actually carried out by the assessee, and accordingly estimated income at 20% of the additional receipt. For the Rs. 8 Lacs addition, although the cash book was not updated, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee might have had cash-in-hand from apple trading and restricted the addition to Rs. 1 Lacs, deleting the remainder.
The Tribunal held that the Tax Audit Report is based on the assessee's books of accounts, and the professional fees paid were operational expenses covered u/s 194J. It found no unexplained expenditure and that the assessment order was not prejudicial to the revenue. Since the conditions of Section 263 were not fulfilled, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had considered the assessee's replies and documents and accepted one of the plausible views. The Pr. CIT's view was not a necessary consequence of the AO's order being erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, rendering the appeal infructuous. It was clarified that if the assessee fails to obtain the full benefit of the Scheme for technical reasons, both parties are at liberty to seek revival of the appeal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act within the prescribed limitations.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure was claimed under Section 36(1)(iii) and not Section 37(1). Since the borrowings were for business purposes and not diverted, the disallowance was incorrect. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 3% of total receipts, similar to previous years where similar appeals were dismissed. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE, as amended, is applicable from 01.04.2017 onwards. For transactions prior to this date, the erstwhile rate of 30% is applicable.
The Tribunal held that after the notification dated 29.03.2022, all notices for reopening of assessment ought to have been issued by the Faceless Authority (NFAC). The jurisdictional AO could not have issued such notice. Therefore, the notice and subsequent assessment order were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay should have been condoned and that the deposits represented business receipts from the assessee's fair price shop. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate a presumptive business income of 8% on these deposits, reducing the income already offered by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merit and dismissed it for want of prosecution, which is contrary to Section 250(6). The penalty for negligence was disproportionate, and hence, a fresh opportunity was granted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contractual receipts were higher than the deposits. Considering withdrawals and other declared income, the sources of deposits were explained. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly confirmed the disallowance. The assessee failed to demonstrate that the employee's contribution was paid within the due date, thus, the deduction cannot be allowed as a business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the entities were covered under the exemption notification and that separate notification for each was not required. They also noted that similar past cases were accepted by the department.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that dismissal on technical grounds would cause irreparable loss. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, and the penalty appeal was also restored for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to lack of a mandatory notice u/s 143(2) and the CIT(A)'s disposal of the appeal without adjudicating grounds was not in accordance with law.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case, recognizing the possibility of communication gaps in the faceless assessment regime.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits, especially when the assessee could not comply with notices due to a lack of awareness of the IT portal and email communication methods.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) upheld the assessment without considering the assessee's replies and various documentary evidences submitted. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to plead and prove its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' rendered the appeal infructuous. The Tribunal also clarified that the appeal could be revived if the benefit of the scheme was not fully availed due to technicalities, subject to a valid application within the limitation period.
The Tribunal held that the deduction claimed under Section 57 for interest paid is allowable. The facts are undisputed, and the claim has been consistently allowed in earlier and subsequent years on similar grounds.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps.
The Tribunal held that as per Supreme Court's ruling, a cooperative society not transacting banking business as defined in the Banking Regulation Act is not a cooperative bank. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is allowable.
The Tribunal held that Section 164 of the Act was not applicable to the assessee. The assessee should be assessed under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act as a charitable institution.
The Tribunal held that the AO's observation that the deposits were from unexplained sources was factually incorrect. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence, including cash vouchers, and had included the receipts in its tax return.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order due to the assessee's contention that the bank deposits were not from turnover but belonged to 'Mother Dairy', the penalty levied under Section 271B, based on the same footing, was also liable to be set aside.
The assessee stated that they succeeded in their rectification application and sought withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal accepted the prayer for withdrawal as there was no objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals have already been heard and the orders are awaited. Consequently, the stay of recovery was extended until June 30, 2025, or until the disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier.
The ITAT set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to reconsider factors such as past profit ratios, depreciation, and treatment of scrap sales, while providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for continuous non-compliance.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition without adequate reasoning and failed to address crucial issues, including the genuineness of sales and cross-examination of suppliers. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed under Section 147 was not valid. The reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the case did not demonstrate sufficient information in the AO's possession to form a belief of escapement of income. The mere fact of cash deposits in the bank account, without further independent inquiries by the AO, could at best lead to suspicion but not a belief of escapement of income. The Tribunal noted that the AO was uncertain about whether a return of income was filed and that the jurisdiction of the AO under the NMS system was limited to non-filers, whereas the assessee had communicated filing of the return. Therefore, the AO's belief of escapement of income was not validly formed. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 was not a valid order in the eyes of law. As the proceedings under Section 263 were collateral to this invalid order, they were also not sustainable. The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263. Adjudication on the merits of the case was deemed academic and not dealt with. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed under Section 147 was not valid. The reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the case were insufficient to form a belief of escapement of income. The AO's belief was primarily based on cash deposits in the assessee's bank account amounting to ₹4.17 crores. However, the Tribunal found that the AO lacked categorical information regarding whether a return of income had been filed by the assessee and had not conducted independent inquiries to ascertain the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the AO's satisfaction was not independently formed but appeared to be based on information from the NMS system, which had jurisdiction only over non-filers, whereas the assessee had communicated filing of its return. The mere fact of cash deposits, without further corroboration or inquiry, could at best lead to suspicion but not a belief of escapement of income. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 was not justified, making the reassessment order invalid. Consequently, the collateral proceedings under Section 263, which revise the invalid reassessment order, are also not sustainable in law. The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263. Adjudication on the merits of the case was considered academic and not dealt with.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the condonation application was filed late and that the assessee's conduct did not inspire confidence.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to afford the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the settlement failed.