Loading ITAT cases…
117 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to demonstrate that the surrendered income originated from any source other than the assessee's declared business or profession. Therefore, taxing the entire surrendered income under Section 115BBE was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of alleged bogus purchases could not be sustained summarily without pointing out defects in the purchase register or books of account, and in the absence of rejection of corresponding production/sales. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted other additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of alleged bogus purchases could not be sustained summarily without pointing out defects in the purchase register or books of account, and in the absence of rejection of corresponding production/sales. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted other additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal had already been restored by the Tribunal for de novo adjudication. Accepting the revenue's request, the current appeal was also restored back with similar directions.
The Tribunal noted that the protective addition was confirmed due to lack of representation and that the substantive assessment was pending. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal accepted the prayer of the Ld. AR and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek revival if the settlement fails.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were unsustainable on facts, as the assessee provided evidence of the source of deposits from retirement benefits and earlier withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits, which involved a gift from a brother-in-law and savings from agricultural income, lacked genuineness and appeared to be an afterthought. The provided evidence was insufficient to establish the source of the funds.
The Tribunal restored the disallowance of contractual payments under Section 40(a)(ia) for proof of payee offering income to tax. The addition for out-of-books sales was deleted for lack of evidence. The disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted as it was based on mere allegation. The addition for unrecorded transactions was restricted to 10%. The addition of stock and other grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is regularly engaged in the business of borrowing and lending, establishing a one-to-one nexus between each loan taken and given is not required. The transactions were not disputed, and no effort was made by the AO to verify their genuineness. Therefore, the interest expenditure is deductible.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was not justified as it was based on a mere change of opinion, without any fresh material. The Tribunal also found that the escrow amount was contingent and not ascertainable in AY 2012-13, thus the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits of the case or providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that due to potential communication gaps in the faceless regime and to uphold principles of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the order was set aside and the appeal was restored.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had sufficient brought forward business losses (Rs. 100.35 Lacs) to set off against the increased business income due to the impugned adjustment. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the set-off of these brought forward losses to the extent of the adjustment and to revise the figures of losses to be carried forward in subsequent years.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming an addition of 307 grams of jewellery. The Tribunal also deleted the addition for unexplained expenditure, finding it based on unsupported loose notations.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the rejection of registration. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities, being largely supported by and geared towards promoting pharma companies, did not align with the definition of 'charitable purpose' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, as they were unethical and contrary to public policy.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's order was ex-parte, and the assessee had not appeared or furnished details before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that, as per CBDT Circular No.11/2019, an assessee is entitled to claim set-off of brought forward losses against income determined under Section 115BBE for assessment years up to 2016-17. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the set-off of losses against the impugned additions/adjustments and recompute the assessee's correct income.
The Tribunal held that the differences in sundry creditor balances were due to timing mismatches caused by the pandemic and were duly reconciled, thus not warranting additions under Section 68 or Section 41(1). Furthermore, the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IA was also considered allowable.
The Tribunal noted that the 6% estimation was arbitrary and directed the AO to estimate the Net Profit Rate at 2% of the turnover and re-compute the income. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the cooperative society's rural operations and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for admission and adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that although there was a time gap, the assessee had sufficient withdrawals, and the rental income was confirmed and offered to tax. Therefore, the addition made by the AO could not be sustained.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions were not properly considered by the first appellate authority and that the assessee's primary grievance was the grant of TDS credit. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee before rejecting the application, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the DCF valuation report was unreliable due to procedural lapses, substantive flaws in projections, and the valuer's ineligibility. The addition made by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271F was premature as it was not yet ascertainable whether the assessee had taxable income requiring a return filing, pending the CIT(A)'s decision on quantum additions. Consequently, the penalty orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after the CIT(A)'s adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271F was premature as it was not yet ascertainable whether the assessee had taxable income requiring a return filing, pending the CIT(A)'s decision on quantum additions. Consequently, the penalty orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after the CIT(A)'s adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had not been finalized. The impugned order was set aside and the issue was relegated to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made in concluded assessments without incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions was upheld on this ground.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's status as an agriculturist for over 35 years and his age, presuming some savings. Consequently, they confirmed a lump sum addition of Rs. 4 Lacs and deleted the remaining addition.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in adopting the circle rate for land value and reducing the covered area. The Tribunal directed the AO to use the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per sq.yd. for land, adopt the covered area at 3302.51 sq.ft., and the cost of construction at Rs. 821/- per sq.ft.
The Tribunal held that the differential amounts paid to M/s Hemali Resorts Pvt. Ltd. did not accrue to or were received by the assessee, as Hemali Resorts had enforceable contractual rights and the payments were taxed in their hands. The Tribunal found that the earlier reassessment, based on a prior Section 263 order, had already comprehensively examined the facts, and the PCIT's second revision amounted to a mere change of opinion without fresh material. Therefore, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 (order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not satisfied.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the differential amounts paid to M/s Hemali Resorts Pvt. Ltd. did not accrue to or were received by the assessee, as Hemali Resorts had enforceable contractual rights and the payments were taxed in their hands. The Tribunal found that the earlier reassessment, based on a prior Section 263 order, had already comprehensively examined the facts, and the PCIT's second revision amounted to a mere change of opinion without fresh material. Therefore, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 (order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not satisfied.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made in concluded assessments without incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions was upheld on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine as supported by various documentary evidences, including purchase invoices, ledger extracts, and VAT forms. The payments were made through banking channels and there was no evidence of routing back of funds.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case and evidence, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order under challenge had been annulled. Given this, and that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For corpus donations, the assessee did not submit proper documentation evidencing the identity of donors. The Tribunal noted that anonymous donations received by charitable trusts are chargeable to tax at 30% under Section 115BBC, and failure to provide PAN details, bank statements, or verifiable documentation means the donation qualifies as anonymous. Regarding unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders, as the affidavits and confirmations lacked bank statements or financial records. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the loans are unexplained and liable to be added under Section 68. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed. The appeals were dismissed both for non-prosecution and on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the alleged donors and lenders, and also failed to provide proper documentation for corpus donations. The appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution and on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the alleged donors and lenders, and also failed to provide proper documentation for corpus donations. The appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution and on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the deposits as sale proceeds of agricultural land by his mother. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable. However, the Tribunal found no error in the AO's decision to reopen the assessment based on the information received.
The Tribunal held that the appeal could not be dismissed on technical grounds and the assessee was eligible for the concessional tax rate of 25% based on their turnover. The AO was directed to recalculate the tax payable.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's activities were in the initial stages and not fully commenced, they were not found to be non-charitable. The rejection was based on apprehension rather than concrete findings of violations. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as the AO based his reasons on factually incorrect information and failed to apply his mind to the assessee's records. The Tribunal also found the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition to be correct, as the deposits were explained by the assessee's audited accounts and business transactions.
The Tribunal reduced the profit rate on unaccounted receipts from 6% to 3% for AY 2017-18. For both assessment years, additions related to alleged loans and interest income were deleted due to lack of corroboration and the 'dumb document' nature of the evidence.
The Tribunal reduced the profit rate on unaccounted receipts from 6% to 3% for AY 2017-18. For both assessment years, additions related to alleged loans and interest income were deleted due to lack of corroboration and the 'dumb document' nature of the evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by furnishing complete documentary evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions, including the source of the lenders' funds. The low income of the lenders alone was not sufficient ground for addition.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to file a fresh appeal before the CIT(A) within a reasonable time, with a sympathetic consideration for any delay.