Loading ITAT cases…
75 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion without any new tangible material and the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. Furthermore, on merits, the electrical installations were considered integral to the plant and machinery and eligible for the claimed depreciation and additional depreciation.
The Tribunal condoned the 42-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of bona fide reasons. The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on audit information and the issue involved verification of due dates for employee contributions. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the very basis of the assessment reopening and the addition for unexplained investment had been previously deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the ITAT in related cases concerning M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Concluding that the issue was covered by prior judgments and had attained finality, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous orders of the Coordinate Bench and other similar cases where similar additions were deleted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not liable to be sustained.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed a consistent pattern of non-appearance by the assessee despite multiple notices and opportunities over a decade. Citing the principle that law aids the vigilant, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's lack of diligence and continued absence.
The assessee's counsel submitted an application to withdraw the present appeal, stating that another appeal on the same matter was already pending. The Ld. Sr. DR did not object to the withdrawal, and consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found substantial force in the arguments of the Revenue. The AO accepted the claim of interest on VAT without examining the underlying provisions of the Haryana VAT Act. The levy of interest at 3% per month after the initial three months clearly suggests penal interest rather than compensatory interest. While the Supreme Court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills held that interest paid to compensate revenue for delay is allowable, it is a settled principle that if a levy is composite (partly compensatory and partly penal), the penal component is not permissible. The Tribunal opined that where the quantum of impost substantially exceeds commercial rates or escalates to punish the defaulter, it partakes the character of a penalty. By failing to verify the break-up of the interest payment and segregate the penal portion, the AO committed an error. The PCIT was justified in holding that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The AO is directed to examine the matter afresh. The Tribunal clarified that its discussion was confined to the issue of whether the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under section 263, and the AO should decide the issue afresh without being influenced by the observations made.
The Tribunal held that the mandatory requirement prescribed under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for electronic evidence was not complied with by the Revenue. Furthermore, the Revenue did not demonstrate adherence to the Board's Standard Operating Procedure for collecting and relying on digital evidence. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue presumed the entire gross profit from alleged unrecorded transactions was taxable without establishing that no indirect or administrative expenditure was incurred. The Tribunal noted that generating turnover, recorded or unrecorded, involves managerial and administrative resources, making taxation of the entire gross profit excessive. However, the Tribunal also found the assessee's declared net profit rate of 1.35% to be on the lower side for unrecorded business. To strike a balance, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 50% of the amount sustained by the CIT(A), resulting in an addition of ₹3,37,612/- for AY 2019-20, with the balance deleted. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2020-21 and AY 2022-23. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the issue of whether the WhatsApp chats themselves were admissible without the Section 65B certificate, focusing instead on the compliance with the Act and SOP.
The Tribunal held that the dismissal on technical grounds denied the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the ex-parte assessment and the substantial addition.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's negligence was apparent, penalizing without a hearing on merits, especially given the high demand, goes against principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the source of SBN deposits, with the assessee directed to cooperate. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that while the Revenue relied on digital evidence, the mandatory requirement under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not complied with, nor was the Board's Standard Operating Procedure for digital evidence followed. The Revenue also presumed the entire gross profit was taxable without establishing that no indirect or administrative expenditure was incurred for these unrecorded transactions. The Tribunal acknowledged that generating turnover, recorded or unrecorded, involves resources, making taxation of the entire gross profit unrealistic. However, it also found the assessee's declared NP rate of 1.35% to be on the lower side for unrecorded business. To strike a balance, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 50% of the amount sustained by the CIT(A), resulting in an addition of ₹3,37,612. The remaining appeals were decided mutatis mutandis. The grounds related to the admissibility of evidence and the application of profit rates were allowed in part.
The Tribunal held that the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act were not complied with for the digital evidence. It also found that taxing the entire gross profit was excessive and unrealistic.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was persistent in failing to respond to notices, the submission regarding incorrect email service for appellate notices carried weight. The addition of gross agricultural receipts as unexplained money without factual verification was a significant grievance. Principles of natural justice require giving the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate claims.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistakes of its previous counsel and granted the assessee one final opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's quantum appeal for the same assessment year had already been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Recognizing that the outcome of the quantum appeal would directly impact the impugned penalties, the Tribunal restored these penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's quantum appeal for the same assessment year had already been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Recognizing that the outcome of the quantum appeal would directly impact the impugned penalties, the Tribunal restored these penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in ignoring the availability of cash-in-hand from recorded withdrawals. The assessee had withdrawn a total of Rs. 32,50,000/- for a cousin's marriage, which took place shortly after the withdrawals. The demonetization announcement altered the utility of these cash holdings, making redeposit plausible.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's quantum appeal for the same assessment year had already been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Recognizing that the outcome of the quantum appeal would directly impact the impugned penalties, the Tribunal restored these penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced compensation, including interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not taxable under Section 56(2)(vii) read with Section 57(iv). The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions affirming that such interest is part of the compensation and potentially exempt under Section 10(37).
The Tribunal held that the enhanced compensation, including interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not taxable under Section 56(2)(vii) read with Section 57(iv). The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions affirming that such interest is part of the compensation and potentially exempt under Section 10(37).
The Tribunal held that the enhanced compensation, including interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not taxable under Section 56(2)(vii) read with Section 57(iv). The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions affirming that such interest is part of the compensation and potentially exempt under Section 10(37).
The Tribunal held that the enhanced compensation, including interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not taxable under Section 56(2)(vii) read with Section 57(iv). The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions affirming that such interest is part of the compensation and potentially exempt under Section 10(37).
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide cogent evidence that any part of the payment was made in cash. Since the prerequisite of making a payment in cash or by cheque was not proven, the obligation to deduct TDS did not arise. The assessment order and the appellate order were quashed.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, condoned the delay, and restored the issue of registration to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to present its case properly.
The Tribunal held that the Miscellaneous Applications were maintainable despite the delay, as they were filed within two months of receiving the order. The Tribunal agreed that the original order inadvertently omitted to grant liberty to reopen assessments under Section 147/148, as per the AbhisarBuildwell judgment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of 50% of cash being spent on household expenses was arbitrary. While acknowledging that the purchase dates back to 2014 and no invoices were found, the Tribunal found the proven cash withdrawals sufficient to cover the purchase of 840 grams. The addition was restricted to 100 grams, valuing it at Rs. 4,89,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-, withdrawn and redeposited on the same day and subsequently used for purchasing property, was adequately explained and verifiable from bank statements. Therefore, the addition of this amount was deleted.
The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's high income and lifestyle, it is plausible to receive gifts and have past savings. Thus, the addition of Rs.1,13,300/- was unwarranted and should be deleted, as the assessee had explained the source.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on FDRs invested from business dues transferred to personal accounts is 'Income from Other Sources' and not 'Business Income'. It also held that legal expenses are not deductible under Section 37, and indexation benefits are not applicable to such interest income.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on FDRs invested from business dues transferred to personal accounts is 'Income from Other Sources' and not 'Business Income'. It also held that legal expenses are not deductible under Section 37, and indexation benefits are not applicable to such interest income.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on FDRs invested from business dues transferred to personal accounts is 'Income from Other Sources' and not 'Business Income'. It also held that legal expenses are not deductible under Section 37, and indexation benefits are not applicable to such interest income.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings due to the non-issuance of a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Act. The Tribunal found this ground to be purely legal, going to the root of the jurisdiction, and not requiring fresh investigation of facts, thus admissible as per the ratio in NTPC Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was declared a non-resident for the relevant financial years based on inquiries and an order under Section 10(3) of the Black Money Act. Respectfully following the decisions of various High Courts, including the Bombay High Court in Barentz India (P.) and the Delhi High Court in Sumitomo Corporation India (P.) Ltd., and the Madras High Court in Ahmed Buhari Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that the failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) when the assessee is an eligible assessee renders the final assessment order void ab initio and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment orders passed for AYs 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 under Section 153A without issuing draft assessment orders under Section 144C were quashed. The Tribunal stated that once the assessment orders are found to be without jurisdiction, the additions on merits become purely academic and need not be examined. The operative direction was to quash the assessments.
The Tribunal found unresolved factual aspects regarding the validity of reassessment, the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2), and the conflicting claims about evidence submission. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, ruling that post-Finance Act 2009, Section 56(2)(viii) specifically taxes such interest as "Income from Other Sources," subject to the Section 57(iv) deduction. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on a precedent which established that such interest is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) and Section 145B(1), and Section 10(37) is not applicable to the interest component.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have made all efforts to serve notice on the assessee at the given address, and failure to do so violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee concerning the non-issuance of a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1). The Tribunal held that this issue goes to the root of the jurisdiction and is a pure question of law, following the Supreme Court's decision in NTPC Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was a non-resident and an 'eligible assessee' as per Section 144C(15)(b). Citing various High Court decisions, including Zuari Cement Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Andhra Pradesh High Court, affirmed by Supreme Court), Vijay Television P. Ltd. v. DRP (Madras High Court), ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India (Delhi High Court), and Ahmed Buhari Vs. ACIT (Madras High Court), the Tribunal concluded that the failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) is a jurisdictional illegality, not a curable procedural defect, rendering the final assessment order void ab initio. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 153A for AYs 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 were quashed as being without jurisdiction. The Tribunal stated that once the assessment orders are found to be without jurisdiction, the additions on merits become purely academic and need not be examined. All appeals of the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) relied on third-party information without confronting the assessee and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee a fair opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) relied on third-party information without confronting the assessee and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee a fair opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable as revenue income, following the ratio of Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The Bench affirmed that such interest falls under Section 56(2)(viii) and is taxable in the year of receipt, rejecting the applicability of Section 10(37).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to adequately inquire into the stock valuation rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, for other issues raised by the PCIT, the Tribunal found the AO's assessment to be sufficient.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee concerning the non-issuance of a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found merit in the submission that this was a pure question of law going to the root of the jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in NTPC Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had admittedly passed final assessment orders under Section 153A without issuing draft assessment orders, despite the assessee being an eligible assessee as per Section 144C(15)(b) and having been declared a non-resident. Following the consistent view of various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court in Sumitomo Corporation India (P.) Ltd. and the Madras High Court in Ahmed Buhari Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that the failure to issue a draft assessment order is a jurisdictional illegality, not a curable defect under Section 292B. Consequently, the final assessment orders were deemed void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal quashed the assessments for all the AYs under appeal. As the assessment orders were void, the additions made on merits were rendered purely academic and were not examined.
The Tribunal held that the failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C is a jurisdictional illegality, not a curable procedural defect. Consequently, the final assessment orders were void ab initio.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to take into account the remand report and the documents filed by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to call for fresh evidence, obtain a remand report from the AO, and then decide the issue.
The Tribunal noted that the basis of the penalty (quantum addition) was under remand. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to remand the penalty proceedings as well, to be decided after the quantum appeal's decision.
The Tribunal clarified that Section 112A(6) prohibits rebate under Section 87A only on capital gains referred to in Section 112A(1) (Long-Term Equity Capital Gains), but not on Debt Long-Term Capital Gains, which are governed by Section 112. Since the assessee's tax on Debt LTCG and other normal income exceeded the rebate threshold, the assessee was found eligible for the full rebate of Rs.25,000/-. The CPC was directed to re-compute the tax payable.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of denial of exemption (Ground No. 2) to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication (de novo consideration), subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the PM Care Fund. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) upheld the denial based on the failure to produce separate books of accounts, the assessee claimed to have voluminous documentation. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s recorded submissions were contrary to the record, as documents were filed, albeit belatedly. The AO is directed to re-examine the nature of receipts and whether activities breached the quantitative limit under the proviso to Section 2(15), after verifying the claimed separate books of accounts. Regarding Ground No. 3 (Disallowance of Interest), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO for verification of the claim, as the underlying issue was non-filing of proofs before the AO, and documents have now been filed. Similarly, for Ground No. 4 (Restriction of Depreciation), the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the ground for statistical purposes, enabling the AO to verify the correctness of fixed asset additions and depreciation claims, as the initial addition was due to procedural non-compliance. The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that interest on compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as revenue receipt under 'Income from Other Sources' due to amendments by the Finance Act, 2009. The Tribunal also dismissed an additional ground regarding the validity of notices issued under the faceless assessment regime.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was vitiated in law due to the approval being obtained on wrong facts and the absence of a mandatory allegation of non-disclosure by the assessee. Consequently, the reopening was quashed on legal grounds, rendering the examination of merits academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeals were dismissed. Regarding the eligibility for exemption under Sections 11 and 12, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to utilize at least 85% of its income for charitable purposes and did not meet the conditions for accumulation under Section 11(2). The Tribunal noted that the accumulation claimed was technically defective and substantively invalid due to vague purposes. The argument that the assessee revised its balance sheet was rejected as the statutory time limit had lapsed. The contention that receipts should be treated as corpus contribution was dismissed as the assessee itself claimed them as revenue and sought deductions under Section 11(2). The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's submissions and upheld the orders of the AO/CIT(A). For AY 2015-16 (ITA No. 63/Chd/2021), the Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s findings under Section 263. It was noted that the assessee incurred only 2.37% expenditure against gross receipts, far below the mandated 85%. The Tribunal also found that major receipts were in the nature of 'cess' which, exceeding the 20% threshold for general public utility activities involving trade or business, made tax exemption not allowable as per Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee's counsel could not rebut these findings. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the authorities below and dismissed all the appeals.