Loading ITAT cases…
125 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal observed that the nomenclature of 'commission' was the root cause of the confusion, and the ideal term for the payment should have been 'royalty'. It was noted that the other cooperative societies had not rendered any direct service to the assessee's cooperative union but had confirmed receipt of royalty at Rs. 3 per liter for milk collected from their milkshed areas. These recipient societies had also declared the received amounts in their profit and loss accounts and paid taxes thereon. The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a government cooperative society, made payments to other government-established cooperative societies based on the recommendations/instructions of the Government of Punjab, which were mandatorily accepted. As a government body, the assessee had no choice but to implement the government's instructions regarding payments for milk collected from other milk shed areas. Therefore, considering the totality of the situation, the addition was deemed unjustified. The appeals on these grounds were allowed.
The Tribunal held that since substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of Shri Gurmail Singh and Shri Arshpreet Singh, the protective additions in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. The principle of not taxing the same money twice was applied.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without evidence of notice service and failed to decide on merits. Upholding natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case and decide on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without evidence of notice service and failed to decide on merits. Upholding natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case and decide on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal observed that the nomenclature of 'commission' was the root cause of the confusion, and the ideal term for the payment should have been 'royalty'. It was noted that the other cooperative societies had not rendered any direct service to the assessee's cooperative union but had confirmed receipt of royalty at Rs. 3 per liter for milk collected from their milkshed areas. These recipient societies had also declared the received amounts in their profit and loss accounts and paid taxes thereon. The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a government cooperative society, made payments to other government-established cooperative societies based on the recommendations/instructions of the Government of Punjab, which were mandatorily accepted. As a government body, the assessee had no choice but to implement the government's instructions regarding payments for milk collected from other milk shed areas. Therefore, considering the totality of the situation, the addition was deemed unjustified. The appeals on these grounds were allowed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without evidence of notice service and failed to decide on merits. Upholding natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case and decide on merits.
The Tribunal held that since substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of Shri Gurmail Singh and Shri Arshpreet Singh, the protective additions in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. The principle of not taxing the same money twice was applied.
The Tribunal held that since substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of Shri Gurmail Singh and Shri Arshpreet Singh, the protective additions in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. The principle of not taxing the same money twice was applied.
The Tribunal held that since substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of Shri Gurmail Singh and Shri Arshpreet Singh, the protective additions in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. The principle of not taxing the same money twice was applied.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal observed that the nomenclature of 'commission' was the root cause of the confusion, and the ideal term for the payment should have been 'royalty'. It was noted that the other cooperative societies had not rendered any direct service to the assessee's cooperative union but had confirmed receipt of royalty at Rs. 3 per liter for milk collected from their milkshed areas. These recipient societies had also declared the received amounts in their profit and loss accounts and paid taxes thereon. The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a government cooperative society, made payments to other government-established cooperative societies based on the recommendations/instructions of the Government of Punjab, which were mandatorily accepted. As a government body, the assessee had no choice but to implement the government's instructions regarding payments for milk collected from other milk shed areas. Therefore, considering the totality of the situation, the addition was deemed unjustified. The appeals on these grounds were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal observed that the nomenclature of 'commission' was the root cause of the confusion, and the ideal term for the payment should have been 'royalty'. It was noted that the other cooperative societies had not rendered any direct service to the assessee's cooperative union but had confirmed receipt of royalty at Rs. 3 per liter for milk collected from their milkshed areas. These recipient societies had also declared the received amounts in their profit and loss accounts and paid taxes thereon. The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a government cooperative society, made payments to other government-established cooperative societies based on the recommendations/instructions of the Government of Punjab, which were mandatorily accepted. As a government body, the assessee had no choice but to implement the government's instructions regarding payments for milk collected from other milk shed areas. Therefore, considering the totality of the situation, the addition was deemed unjustified. The appeals on these grounds were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred by admitting and relying upon additional evidence without providing an opportunity to the AO to examine it or submit comments, thereby violating Rule 46A. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to confront the AO with the additional evidence, call for a remand report, and decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing due opportunity to both parties.
The Tribunal recognized the assessee's status and allowed partial acceptance of claimed cash sources, including past savings and receipts from friends/relatives. Following a High Court decision, it ruled that the 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE is applicable only from April 1, 2017, and not for demonetization transactions in FY 2016-17, for which the 30% rate applies. Consequently, the tribunal estimated a lump sum addition of Rs. 3 Lacs, taxable at normal rates.
The Tribunal held that additions must be strictly based on incriminating material found during the survey, and unsupported extrapolation for the entire year is not permissible without corroborative evidence or admission for other months. Citing precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the impugned addition to Rs. 2,54,115/- only, which would be taxable u/s 69C read with section 115BBE of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal observed that the nomenclature of 'commission' was the root cause of the confusion, and the ideal term for the payment should have been 'royalty'. It was noted that the other cooperative societies had not rendered any direct service to the assessee's cooperative union but had confirmed receipt of royalty at Rs. 3 per liter for milk collected from their milkshed areas. These recipient societies had also declared the received amounts in their profit and loss accounts and paid taxes thereon. The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a government cooperative society, made payments to other government-established cooperative societies based on the recommendations/instructions of the Government of Punjab, which were mandatorily accepted. As a government body, the assessee had no choice but to implement the government's instructions regarding payments for milk collected from other milk shed areas. Therefore, considering the totality of the situation, the addition was deemed unjustified. The appeals on these grounds were allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, as the assessee proved genuineness of transactions with banking channel payments, D-MAT holdings for over five years, and online trading without evidence of price manipulation by the AO. The ITAT, however, dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the validity of the assessment reopening under Section 148, as the AO had prima-facie reasons based on information from the ADIT (Investigation).
The Tribunal observed that the exact dates of deposit and whether any portion was paid within statutory deadlines were not verified by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for factual verification, directing them to re-examine the issue with documentary evidence and allow deductions for payments made within due dates.
The Tribunal observed that the additions were protective in nature for the assessee and that substantive additions in a connected case (M/s Gobind Dham Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.) on the same issues were subsequently deleted by the ITAT. Considering these judicial developments and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the entire matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide all relevant records.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the dealer schemes and that the fall in profit ratio was explained by adverse business conditions. The AO's disallowances were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) read with Section 145B(1) on a receipt basis, effective from April 1, 2010. Decisions of the Supreme Court predating this amendment were considered not applicable to post-amendment assessment years.
The Tribunal held that receipt of consideration from a third party for exports is legally permissible if a clear nexus between the exports and the consideration is established. The assessee sufficiently demonstrated privity of consideration and contract, linking the remittances to export transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions by providing necessary documents, including the 'source of source' of the lenders. Consequently, the addition of cash credit under Section 68 was deleted, making Section 115BBE inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that receipt of consideration from a third party for exports is legally permissible if a clear nexus between the exports and the consideration is established. The assessee sufficiently demonstrated privity of consideration and contract, linking the remittances to export transactions.
The Tribunal held that receipt of consideration from a third party for exports is legally permissible if a clear nexus between the exports and the consideration is established. The assessee sufficiently demonstrated privity of consideration and contract, linking the remittances to export transactions.
The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions for the assessee to present their case forthwith.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that purchases could not be disallowed merely because suppliers did not respond to notices, lacked email IDs, or did not file IT returns. It was noted that the assessee provided substantial documentary evidence, all payments were made via banking channels, sales were accepted, and no defects were found in the assessee's books, with financial results being consistent with prior years. The ITAT concluded that the disallowance was based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.
The Tribunal, relying on multiple High Court judgments, held that the notice under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was invalid because the Faceless Assessment Scheme, under Section 151A read with CBDT Notification, mandates issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), even for Central and International Taxation matters. Consequently, the impugned notice and the subsequent assessment order, along with the addition made by the AO, were quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party evidence without independent corroboration or opportunity for cross-examination are unsustainable. It also found that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party evidence without independent corroboration or opportunity for cross-examination are unsustainable. It also found that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party evidence without independent corroboration or opportunity for cross-examination are unsustainable. It also found that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party evidence without independent corroboration or opportunity for cross-examination are unsustainable. It also found that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that purchases could not be disallowed merely because suppliers did not respond to notices, lacked email IDs, or did not file IT returns. It was noted that the assessee provided substantial documentary evidence, all payments were made via banking channels, sales were accepted, and no defects were found in the assessee's books, with financial results being consistent with prior years. The ITAT concluded that the disallowance was based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.
The Tribunal, in adherence to principles of natural justice, accepted the assessee's request for another opportunity. Consequently, the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with the direction for the assessee to present and prove its case forthwith.
The CIT(A) and subsequently the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing comprehensive documentary evidence, including bank statements, invoices, e-way bills, and transport documents, for the purchases which were linked to genuine sales. The AO's assessment was based on presumptions, lacked systematic verification, and failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee or bring credible counter-material. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the penalties, finding that the assessee's income was below the taxable limit and predominantly agricultural, and all lenders were agriculturists, thus falling under the second proviso to Section 269SS/269T. The Tribunal also accepted the reasonable cause plea under Section 273B, considering it was the assessee's first year of business, the nature of business involved cash transactions, and the lenders were rural family friends. Previous tribunal decisions supporting deletion of penalties under bona fide circumstances and reasonable cause were also considered.
The Tribunal, relying on a Supreme Court decision, held that reassessment notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid and quashed the reopening of assessment u/s 148. Consequently, the related order passed u/s 263 was also quashed as its very foundation, an erroneous and prejudicial assessment, ceased to exist once the reassessment was quashed.
The CIT(A), following the High Court's directions and a binding judicial precedent, found that the section 148 notice issued by the jurisdictional AO was invalid as per the CBDT notification dated 29-03-2022. Consequently, the notice was quashed, and the assessment order annulled. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, finding no reason to interfere.
The Tribunal deleted the penalties, finding that the assessee's income was below the taxable limit and predominantly agricultural, and all lenders were agriculturists, thus falling under the second proviso to Section 269SS/269T. The Tribunal also accepted the reasonable cause plea under Section 273B, considering it was the assessee's first year of business, the nature of business involved cash transactions, and the lenders were rural family friends. Previous tribunal decisions supporting deletion of penalties under bona fide circumstances and reasonable cause were also considered.
The Tribunal, relying on a Supreme Court decision, held that reassessment notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid and quashed the reopening of assessment u/s 148. Consequently, the related order passed u/s 263 was also quashed as its very foundation, an erroneous and prejudicial assessment, ceased to exist once the reassessment was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This remand is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 3,000/- to the PM CARES Fund within one month, without which the AO may proceed based on available records. No opinion on the merits of the addition was expressed.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This remand is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs. 3,000/- to the PM CARES Fund within one month, without which the AO may proceed based on available records. No opinion on the merits of the addition was expressed.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to set aside the ex-parte assessment and remand the case for a fresh assessment. It noted that the CIT(A) acted within its statutory powers conferred by the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, which explicitly allows for such remand in cases of assessments made under section 144. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the legislative intent of the proviso is to ensure assessments are framed on merits after affording due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits and without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Emphasizing the element of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, instructing to provide proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, emphasizing that a statutory appellate authority like the CIT(A) must pass a reasoned order under Section 250(6) and cannot dismiss an appeal without adjudicating its merits. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had failed to provide sufficient opportunity of being heard and did not decide the case on its merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits and without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Emphasizing the element of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, instructing to provide proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income. However, considering the medical condition of the partner and the arguments raised, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income. However, considering the medical condition of the partner and the arguments raised, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits and without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Emphasizing the element of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, instructing to provide proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income. However, considering the medical condition of the partner and the arguments raised, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.