Loading ITAT cases…
142 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee's accounting method did not prevent disallowance under Section 43B. However, the argument regarding the timing of GST payment (after Tax Audit but before the due date of return filing) was found to carry weight and was restored to the CIT(A) for verification.
The Tribunal held that the higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE is not applicable to transactions prior to April 1, 2017, as the survey occurred before this date and before the relevant amendment came into force. It directed the AO to apply normal tax rates to the surrendered income. The Tribunal also reduced the lump-sum disallowance from Rs. 5 Lacs to Rs. 2 Lacs, deleting the remaining Rs. 3 Lacs.
The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal request. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 251(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the CIT(A) has the power to set aside an assessment order if it was passed ex-parte. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s action was justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment, framed under best judgment due to the assessee's non-compliance and based on bank statements, reflected one of the plausible views on the matter. Since a possible view was taken, the AO's order could not be deemed erroneous for lack of inquiry or verification under the circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Pr.CIT's invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 unsustainable and restored the original assessment order.
The Tribunal condoned the lapse in filing the online appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its own merits. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made cash withdrawals of Rs. 31 Lacs from their father's transferred funds. It was presumed that the same amount was re-deposited due to demonetization, and thus the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal request. Considering the facts, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application and dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn.
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.
The Tribunal found the facts identical to a previous case (Sh. Avi Aggarwal) where relief was granted on merits. Following this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 10(38) in favor of the assessee. The technical issue concerning the reopening under Section 148 was dismissed as academic.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that granting the assessee another opportunity was necessary for a fair adjudication, especially given that the original assessment was a best judgment assessment under Section 144. The Tribunal confirmed the direction to the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity, ensuring all issues, including unsecured loans and bogus purchases, are properly considered.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 10(10A) as the lumpsum payment received was in lieu of pensionary rights. The denial of this claim by the AO was an apparent error that could be rectified under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a commission agent ('Kacha Arhtia') and not a trader, and the TDS deducted by the buyers under Section 194Q was on purchases of agricultural produce sold on behalf of farmers. Therefore, the disallowance of TDS credit was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to clarify the issues before the adverse inferences were drawn by the CIT(E). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the grounds on merits. The dismissal for non-prosecution cannot be sustained, and the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal affirmed that the CIT (Appeals) has the power under Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act to set aside an ex-parte assessment order and remand issues to the Assessing Officer. Finding no error in the CIT (Appeals)'s decision to set aside and remand the case, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, it found that the assessee maintained meticulous details of the recipients of the incentives/commission, and neither the AO nor the CIT(A) pointed out any specific defect or issued notices to the recipients. The tribunal deleted the entire disallowance, allowing the full actual expenses of Rs. 27,36,600/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a society engaged in educational activity with gross receipts not exceeding One Crore rupees, was entitled to total exemption under Section 10(23)(iii)(d) of the Act. The AO was not empowered to invoke Section 11(5) or raise the issue.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless assessment regime, set aside the impugned order. The assessment was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to provide the assessee a full opportunity to plead and prove its case, considering all presented evidences.
The Tribunal held that loans from close relatives (sister-in-law and sons) with sufficient income/land should not be doubted. The Tribunal also found no such credit entry for the addition of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Thus, the addition of Rs. 8,70,000/- was deleted.
The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely on the basis of an unsigned and unregistered agreement to sell, especially when no independent inquiry was conducted by the AO, no cross-examination was allowed, and the property remained in the seller's name. The addition was deemed unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee. Regarding the addition on account of 'on money' in respect of cash receipts on sale of immovable property (AY 2021-22), the Tribunal found that the addition was based solely on a photocopy of an agreement to sell retrieved from WhatsApp chats and a slip from the assessee's husband's mobile. These documents lacked independent corroboration and their genuineness was not verified. The Tribunal noted that the alleged agreement to sell was a photocopy, uncorroborated, contained vague details, and the firm with whom the sale deed was executed came into existence after the agreement date. The assessee had explained the sale consideration as comprising land/infrastructure and poultry birds/feed, totaling Rs. 1,12,80,000, supported by books and banking records. The statement of the assessee's husband clarified no cash was received and the value was renegotiated due to bird flu. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiries, such as recording statements of the buyer or witnesses, and no incriminating material was found during search. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on unverified documents without proper inquiry. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,49,00,000 was directed to be deleted. The judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on other grounds such as foreign travel, vehicle expenses, and jewelry investment, but the operative part states both appeals are allowed, implying relief on all grounds.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,49,00,000/- for AY 2021-22 on account of 'on money' in respect of cash receipts on the sale of immovable property was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the addition was based solely on a photocopy of an agreement to sell retrieved from WhatsApp chats and a slip from the assessee's husband's mobile, neither of which had independent corroboration or verification from the alleged buyer, seller, or witnesses. The Tribunal found that the alleged agreement was a photocopy, uncorroborated, and lacked details regarding payment. Crucially, the firm M/s Krishna Poultries, with whom the registered sale deed was executed, came into existence after the date of the alleged agreement. The assessee's explanation that the transaction comprised sale of land and infrastructure (Rs. 94,00,000/-) and poultry items (Rs. 18,80,000/-), totaling Rs. 1,12,80,000/-, which was reflected in books and supported by banking records, was accepted. The statement of the assessee's husband clarifying no cash was received and the renegotiation due to bird flu was also considered consistent with contemporaneous agreements and public knowledge. The Tribunal emphasized the failure of the Assessing Officer to conduct any inquiry from the alleged buyer or record the seller's statement, and the absence of any corroborative evidence from the search. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of this addition. The judgment does not provide a detailed analysis or decision on the other grounds related to foreign travel, vehicle expenses, and jewelry investment, but the concluding remarks state that 'both the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed,' implying all additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's books of accounts and those of the parties involved were not rejected, and sales to these parties were accepted by the AO. Relying on case laws, the Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 24 lacs could not be sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Sr. DR did not object to the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the prayer for withdrawal by the assessee and dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that WhatsApp chat without corroborative evidence is insufficient to prove a transaction. The Tribunal found no other documentary evidence to support the addition.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were not sham and reversed the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were not sham and reversed the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were not sham and reversed the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were not sham and reversed the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted a limited scrutiny, was conscious of the issue of agricultural income, and had issued a detailed questionnaire. The assessee had provided comprehensive replies, including confirmed copies of commission agent accounts, J-Forms, Jamabandi of land, and bank account details showing the credit of sale proceeds. The Tribunal noted that agricultural income had been accepted in previous years without adverse inference. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's observations, such as the lack of HUF status mentioned in one bank account, were not sufficient to deem the AO's order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, especially when other evidence supported the claim. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in V.Con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which held that Section 263 powers cannot be exercised without establishing an abject failure and lapse on the part of the AO. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had made adequate inquiries and taken a possible view. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was cancelled, and the AO's original assessment order was restored.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Sr. DR did not object to the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the prayer for withdrawal by the assessee and dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were not sham and reversed the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A, following previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance for advances made to subsidiary/sister concerns, citing commercial expediency and sufficient own funds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. It noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years by the ITAT and the CIT(A), based on the assessee demonstrating sufficient own funds and the business decision regarding interest rates not being challengeable by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that if an assessment is reopened for a specific reason (e.g., unexplained sales) but additions are made on a different ground (e.g., sundry creditors), and no addition is made on the original ground, then no other addition can be made. This is based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that if an assessment is reopened for a specific reason (e.g., unexplained sales) but additions are made on a different ground (e.g., sundry creditors), and no addition is made on the original ground, then no other addition can be made. This is based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had validly exercised its power of remand to direct a fresh assessment. This was considered necessary due to the assessee's submissions and evidence which had material bearing on the assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the assessee's lack of awareness about the CIT(Appeals) order was a bonafide error and not a deliberate strategy. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remitted the issue to the AO for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee to raise objections.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee might not have expanded substantial resources, it was in the process of undertaking its objectives, and its activities would take time to fructify. No violation of provisions was noted, and the registration could not be denied.
The Tribunal held that no capital gains arose in the assessment year 2008-09 as the land development agreement did not result in a transfer of a capital asset. The agreement was considered a collaboration for development, and the income was hypothetical as permissions were not obtained and the land was converted to stock-in-trade later.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of sundry creditors was not sustainable as the provisions of Section 68 are applicable only to unexplained cash credits, and these creditors represented trade payables that were settled. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) and 40A(3A) was also deleted as the AO could not establish that any single cash payment exceeded the threshold limit, and the payments were made in the routine course of business. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for freight payments was deleted as each GR represented a separate contract, and the assessee had no overall contract with the transporters.
The Tribunal held that the confirmation of the addition was without sound logic as the source of cash withdrawal (Rs. 30 Lacs) was not doubted, and the bank credit forming the source was also not questioned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) validly exercised its remand power given the assessee's submissions and evidence during the first appeal that had material bearing on the assessment. No infirmity was found in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of sundry creditors was not sustainable as the provisions of Section 68 are applicable only to unexplained cash credits, and these creditors represented trade payables that were settled. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) and 40A(3A) was also deleted as the AO could not establish that any single cash payment exceeded the threshold limit, and the payments were made in the routine course of business. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for freight payments was deleted as each GR represented a separate contract, and the assessee had no overall contract with the transporters.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of sundry creditors was not sustainable as the provisions of Section 68 are applicable only to unexplained cash credits, and these creditors represented trade payables that were settled. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) and 40A(3A) was also deleted as the AO could not establish that any single cash payment exceeded the threshold limit, and the payments were made in the routine course of business. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for freight payments was deleted as each GR represented a separate contract, and the assessee had no overall contract with the transporters.
The tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order suffered from a violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not granted a fair opportunity to file a rejoinder to the remand report. The appeal was decided after a significant delay without proof of notice service.
The Tribunal observed that a small and rectifiable mistake should not deny the assessee a rightful claim and emphasized the Revenue's duty to provide adequate opportunity. It decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, instructing to provide the assessee a full and fair opportunity of hearing and to consider all submissions and relevant material.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, subject to costs, and restored the issues of loan genuineness, interest allowability, and denial of exemption under section 11 to the AO for fresh consideration.