Loading ITAT cases…
158 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed ex-parte and the assessee has now produced documentary evidence. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present her case before the AO.
The Tribunal held that filing Form No. 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory. A procedural lapse in filing the form after the due date does not extinguish the substantive right to claim FTC, especially when filed before the assessment is completed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT had erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had applied its mind, raised queries, and received replies from the assessee. The Tribunal found that the business model of the assessee, involving e-wallet and recharge coupon services, was explained and not doubted by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount of Rs. 25 lacs, offered during the survey, should be taxed as per the normal business income of the assessee, not as deemed income under section 115BBE. The Tribunal relied on various precedents where similar surrendered amounts related to business activities were taxed at normal rates.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, including bank statements and 'source of source' information, which proved the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO was given opportunities to respond but did not.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action of raising a new issue regarding share premium without proper notice and opportunity to the assessee was not permissible. The issue of share count discrepancy was based on a misunderstanding and was clarified by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had consistently followed the business model of collecting money from small depositors and transferring it to the bank for several years, and the department had accepted this modus operandi in the past. Since no new material was presented to justify a deviation, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153A, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Regarding the sale of land, it was deemed a capital asset as it fell within municipal limits, and the claim of agricultural land was not sufficiently substantiated.
The Tribunal held that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan transactions were established as creditors appeared before the AO and provided confirmations and bank statements. The disallowance of interest was also deleted as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for business advances.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals. Regarding Ground 1 (validity of Section 153A additions without incriminating material), the Tribunal's findings in ITA No. 11/Chd/2018 were applied mutatis mutandis. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the capital gain on land sale, confirming that the land was a capital asset as it was situated within the limits of the Panchkula Municipal Corporation, as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence, such as a certificate from a Revenue official, to rebut the AO's contention. For AY 2012-13, the addition of Rs. 9,05,446 on account of capital gains was confirmed for similar reasons. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the cash found during the search, upholding the addition of Rs. 11,15,000 after allowing relief of Rs. 30,00,000. The CIT(A)'s findings on this issue were considered clear and well-reasoned. The appeal concerning the deduction under Chapter VI-A for AY 2011-12 was not pressed and thus dismissed.
The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the substantive legal issues, particularly concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings and additions, would be a denial of justice. The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not disputed the sale deeds and the relationship. A minor discrepancy in amounts did not negate the explanation provided by the assessee, especially since she proved the source of funds from her nephew. Therefore, no addition under Section 68 or 69A was warranted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had resolved the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, paid the necessary taxes, and Form No. 2 was issued. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The ITAT held that the rejection of books of accounts was unjustified as no specific defects were pointed out and the transactions with M/s B.S. Traders were accepted by the revenue in the supplier's assessment. The addition on account of GP rate and cash deposits were also deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the Assessee had moved an application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas, 2024' Scheme and the Income Tax Department had issued a relevant form.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the capital work-in-progress, making the allocation of interest expenditure unsustainable. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the issue of additional depreciation on merits rather than dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the capital work-in-progress, making the allocation of interest expenditure unsustainable. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had resolved the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, paid the necessary taxes, and Form No. 2 was issued. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16 by issuing a notice under Section 148 after 31.03.2021 is not sustainable as it is time-barred, relying on a Supreme Court judgment.
The Tribunal held that the impugned adjudication followed binding judicial precedent from the Apex Court. Specific provisions for disallowance would prevail over general provisions for deduction, and the assessee's plea regarding disputed due dates lacked substance.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of non-receipt and the CIT(A)'s dismissal for procedural lapse. Considering that technical issues should not override fair justice, the Tribunal remanded the case back to CIT(A) to verify the email ID's activity and determine the genuineness of the delay, directing the assessee to file an affidavit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearings and did not provide any details to support its appeals. The CIT's order under Section 263 was reviewed, and no error was found.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the reassessment order and notices were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid due to lack of proper procedure, including the absence of a Section 143(2) notice. The penalty under Section 271D was also deleted as the addition was deleted and the amount did not constitute a loan or deposit under Section 269SS.
The tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to be heard by the AO. Both appeals were set aside and restored for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid due to lack of proper procedure and the addition of Rs. 13 crore was not sustainable. The penalty under Section 271D was also deleted as the addition was deleted and the amount did not fall under Section 269SS.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearings and did not provide any details to support its appeals. The CIT's order under Section 263 was reviewed, and no error was found.
The tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to be heard by the AO. Both appeals were set aside and restored for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in appreciating the facts and that the money received was a gift from the son. The alleged irregularity of direct transfer from company accounts was explained.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities passed the order without considering the assessee's submissions regarding notices sent to wrong addresses and without providing an opportunity for hearing, which is against principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication pending the decision on the condonation application, which is crucial for the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee was not obliged to make payment under the scheme without relevant forms being issued. The CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was void, the Revenue's appeal against it was infructuous and non-maintainable. The grounds raised by the Revenue were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the source of income is the relevant factor for determining its head. Since the additional income was offered over and above normal business profits and not from unknown sources, it should be accepted as normal business income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished various documents to the lower authorities. It was observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider these documents. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees substantially have no grievance at present. If the Department proposes further action under Section 263, the assessees are at liberty to revive the appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees substantially have no grievance at present. If the Department proposes further action under Section 263, the assessees are at liberty to revive the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's consistent method of stock valuation, supported by quantitative details and audited books, was not flawed. The declaration to banks, being an approximate value, could not override the book valuation, especially when no discrepancy was found by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is an agriculturist whose agricultural income was accepted by the AO. It found that the assessee had a valid agreement to sell land with Shri Maninder Singh, who confirmed the advance payment of Rs. 29.20 Lacs received in cash. The Tribunal held that the non-registration of the sale deed does not invalidate the claim, as the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the transaction, and therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees substantially have no grievance at present. If the Department proposes further action under Section 263, the assessees are at liberty to revive the appeals.
The Assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishawas Scheme. The Senior DR did not object.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not justified as it was based on a change of opinion and no new information was available to the AO after the scrutiny assessment. The AO and CIT(A) had already considered the issue of disallowing interest on borrowed funds during the original assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity. The Tribunal found that it is the duty of the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits even if the assessee failed to appear.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was 54 days. Considering the assessee's explanation and the fact that the assessment order was not properly served, the Tribunal condoned the delay. Furthermore, since the AO and CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits after considering the assessee's detailed reply and evidence, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee for proving the genuineness of the loans. The Tribunal, considering the limited scope of inquiry by the lower authorities and the need for proper adjudication, remanded the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the Revenue could not demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The opportunity for cross-examination was also inadequate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and not based on merits, relying solely on the AO's assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for a de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-filer status and the issue of advance tax. However, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, an opportunity for a fresh hearing was granted.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. has ruled that delayed payment of contributions beyond statutory due dates are not permissible for deduction. However, in the interest of natural justice and to verify certain facts, the Tribunal remitted the cases back to the AO for de-novo verification.