Loading ITAT cases…
74 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the appeal was required to be filed before the Amritsar Benches, and the revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the rejection of the Section 12AB registration application. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the prayer of the Ld. AR, citing the principle of natural justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 was set aside, and the matter was restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case forthwith. The Tribunal noted that no other grounds were urged in the appeal. For AY 2019-20, the facts were identical, and therefore, this appeal was also restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) on similar lines. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive merits of the assessment.
The Tribunal held that considering the co-owner's case (Shri Sachin Tyagi) was remitted back by the Tribunal to the AO, the impugned order in the present case should also be set aside. The matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment. The Tribunal directed the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was consequential to the quantum assessment, and therefore, it was also restored back to the AO for re-adjudication in light of the outcome of the quantum assessment. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the impugned addition was made merely on the basis of a third-party document without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that no opportunity for cross-examination was provided to the assessee, which vitiates the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, even the assessee's name could not be precisely deciphered in the alleged incriminating documents. The Tribunal also found that a similar issue had been decided in the assessee's favor by this Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to comply with the initial statutory notices and found the argument of non-receipt of notices to be invalid, as they were delivered to the registered email ID. However, taking a holistic view, the Tribunal noted the assessee's subsequent cooperation and submission of detailed replies and documents, leading to the acceptance of returned income without additions. The Tribunal considered the maximum cumulative penalty of Rs. 30,000/- to be harsh given the circumstances, as the assessee was not completely contumacious or persistently negligent. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the penalty to a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/-. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by its own prior decision for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal noted that Appendix-1 of the Income Tax Rules prescribes a 10% depreciation rate for furniture and fittings, including electrical fittings. However, the material on record indicated that the electrical installation expenditure included items like transformers, machine panel boards, metal detectors, spark detectors, and yarn conditioning machines, which were indispensable for the manufacturing process and functionally inseparable from the plant and machinery. Therefore, these expenditures were integral to Plant & Machinery. The Tribunal relied on the ratio of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (289 ITR 261) and the Delhi Tribunal in Nalwa Steel Power Ltd. (ITA No.4559/Del/2010 dated 09-08-2016), which held that electrical installations and transformers constitute an integral part of Plant & Machinery eligible for investment allowance and depreciation. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the impugned additional depreciation to the assessee as per its claim. No other grounds were urged.
The Tribunal held that technicalities or procedural lapses should not impede substantial justice, provided there is no deliberate inaction or mala fide intent. Considering the principles of natural justice and the need for a fair opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 608 days. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the quantum assessment was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This restoration was made subject to a nominal cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the assessee to the Poor Patient Relief Fund of PGI Hospital, Chandigarh within 30 days. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully in the assessment proceedings. The penalty appeal, being consequential, was also restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in light of the outcome of the quantum assessment. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 511 days in filing the appeal, being satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal accepted the prayer of the assessee's AR to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the delay of 85 days, decided to condone it in the interest of natural justice and considering the background of the assessee. The Tribunal admitted the appeal and restored the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case forthwith before the CIT(A). The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, implying that the substantive issues of the assessment were to be decided afresh by the CIT(A). No specific finding was given on the merits of the capital gains assessment as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the assessment proceedings were conducted under complete scrutiny, with the AO issuing specific notices and calling for documentary evidence regarding the insurance claim write-off. The assessee furnished explanations and supporting documents, which the AO, after due examination, accepted. The Tribunal concluded that this was a case of inquiry followed by acceptance, not a complete lack of inquiry. The Pr. CIT essentially substituted his own view for that of the AO, which is not permissible under Section 263. The Tribunal also noted that the revision appeared to be triggered by an audit objection without independent demonstration of error by the Pr. CIT. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that there was ultimately no loss to the revenue. The reliance on CIT v. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. was distinguished, as in the present case, the AO had examined the issue, unlike situations where a claim is accepted without examination. The Tribunal also held that Explanation-2 to Section 263 was not attracted as the foundational fact of a complete absence of inquiry was not established. Consequently, the impugned revisionary order was quashed, and the original assessment order was restored. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of whether the loss was capital or revenue in nature, focusing solely on the validity of the Section 263 invocation.
The Tribunal held that the first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed without considering the assessee's submissions and explanations. Citing the principle of natural justice and considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case forthwith. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues regarding the addition of cash deposits or the estimation of business income, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is engaged in educational activities that necessitate approvals and affiliations from appropriate authorities before commencement. Without these approvals, the assessee cannot initiate educational courses. Accepting the assessee's plea, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(E). The matter of registration was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to demonstrate the required approvals and the commencement of educational activities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
On Ground No. 1, the Tribunal noted it was general in nature and did not provide specific findings or reasoning. On Ground No. 2, concerning the disallowance of processing fees, the Tribunal held that the issue requires examination of the period to which the expenditure relates and the purpose of the borrowings. It stated that payment to a bank or treatment as prepaid expenditure does not inherently make it capital in nature. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine if the processing fee was part of the acquisition of capital assets. Consequently, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Ground No. 2 was allowed for statistical purposes. On Ground No. 3, regarding TDS credit, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had already directed the Assessing Officer to grant credit in accordance with law. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was barred by limitation and was therefore invalid in law. The admitted facts were that the assessment year was 2019-20, the alleged escaped income was Rs.53,000/-, and the notice under section 148 was issued on 20.04.2023. Even after considering the period granted to the assessee for responding to the notice under section 148A(b), which extended up to 19.04.2023, the notice under section 148 was issued after this date. Consequently, the reassessment order dated 17.03.2025, passed under section 147 read with section 144B, was annulled. The ratio of this decision is that a notice under section 148 issued beyond the prescribed limitation period under section 149 renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal held that while the payment to M/s. Tanzil Nutrition Centre, being a proprietary concern of the assessee's wife, falls under Section 40A(2)(b), the provision does not mandate automatic disallowance. The AO must examine if the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable considering the fair market value, legitimate business needs, or benefit derived. The Tribunal noted that the AO's benchmark of 30% was based on a comparison with the Ayurvedic products business, which the assessee contested as inappropriate for his Herbalife distribution model. The assessee had provided an agreement with TNC and stated that TNC incurred substantial expenditure on business promotion. The Tribunal found that a mere comparison with a different business line without comparable material is insufficient to establish excessiveness. It also acknowledged that the recipient being a related person requires verification of services rendered and commercial justification. Considering the facts, the Tribunal set aside the disallowance of Rs. 18,76,286/- made under Section 40A(2)(b).
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable based solely on the information that M/s Niyati Traders was an accommodation entry provider. The Tribunal noted that the assessee recorded the transactions as sales in its regular books, received consideration through banking channels, included the sales in its turnover, and offered the resultant profit to tax. The burden was on the Revenue to demonstrate, with cogent material, that the transaction was not a sale or that the money received was not sale consideration. The Tribunal found that the Revenue had not established a specific nexus between M/s Niyati Traders' alleged accommodation entry operations and the assessee's specific transactions. The assessment record lacked independent inquiry by the AO regarding the specific transactions. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after examining the evidence relating to the impugned transactions, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that Grounds 1 and 2 were not pressed and were dismissed. Regarding Grounds 3 to 13 concerning the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 20,17,56,905/-, the Tribunal noted that an identical issue had arisen in the assessee's own case for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19, where the Tribunal deleted the adjustments, a decision upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The High Court had observed that the TPO did not undertake the exercise under Rule 10AB before determining ALP at Nil and that the assessee had demonstrated receipt of India-specific services. The Tribunal also noted that a coordinate bench had followed these decisions for AY 2021-22. Finding the facts and circumstances materially identical for the current year and in the absence of distinguishing features from the Revenue, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment, allowing Grounds 3 to 13. For Grounds 14 to 17, concerning the adoption of total income, the Tribunal found the assessee's contention supported by the rectification order and directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to the rectification order dated August 26, 2024, allowing Grounds 14 and 17. For Grounds 15 and 16, regarding the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) and depreciation adjustment, the Tribunal found the disallowance unsustainable due to timely payment and directed verification for the depreciation adjustment, allowing Grounds 15 and 16. The Tribunal did not record any specific findings or decisions on Grounds 7 and 8 as they were not discussed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by furnishing complete details, including identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The Tribunal found that the AO's observation about non-receipt of replies to Section 133(6) notices was contrary to the record, as investor companies had submitted documents directly. The Tribunal noted that common shareholding in the investor companies does not automatically imply that the funds are unexplained, and the AO failed to demonstrate this. The Tribunal also observed that the financial statements of the investor companies did not show an increase in investment from Billion Properties, suggesting the investor companies used their own reserves. The Tribunal found that the AO had erroneously examined the name of one company and that low income alone was not a sufficient basis to doubt creditworthiness, especially when complete documentation was provided. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and explanations, shifting the burden to the AO to disprove the transactions, which the AO failed to do. Reliance was placed on CIT Vs. Winstral Petrochemicals (P.) Ltd, CIT Vs. Gangour Investment Ltd, and CIT Vs. Electro Polychem Ltd. The addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained. It observed that the additions were substantially based on statements or material from a third-party search. The assessee had disputed this and requested the underlying material and an opportunity for cross-examination. However, the assessment order did not demonstrate that the relied-upon material was duly furnished to the assessee or that an effective opportunity to rebut it was given. Since the adverse material forming the basis of the additions was not properly confronted to the assessee, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to furnish the material relied upon, provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to rebut it, and decide the issues afresh in accordance with the law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that technicalities or procedural lapses should not impede substantial justice, provided there is no deliberate inaction or mala fide intent. Considering the principles of natural justice and the need for a fair opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 608 days. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the quantum assessment was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This restoration was made subject to a nominal cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the assessee to the Poor Patient Relief Fund of PGI Hospital, Chandigarh within 30 days. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully in the assessment proceedings. The penalty appeal, being consequential, was also restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication in light of the outcome of the quantum assessment. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that considering the co-owner's case (Shri Sachin Tyagi) was remitted back by the Tribunal to the AO, the impugned order in the present case should also be set aside. The matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment. The Tribunal directed the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was consequential to the quantum assessment, and therefore, it was also restored back to the AO for re-adjudication in light of the outcome of the quantum assessment. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on account of alleged unaccounted purchases, based solely on ledger entries extracted from the SAP-based JSK server found at third-party premises, is legally unsustainable. The Tribunal found that these documents could not be treated as incriminating material against the assessee unless corroborated with cogent evidence. The onus was on the AO to establish a nexus between the ledger entries and the assessee, which was not done. The Tribunal noted that the documents lacked details and were inadequate to fasten liability. Citing its own decision in Kuldeep Rai vs. DCIT and other similar judgments, the Tribunal reiterated that additions founded solely upon third-party seized material and statements, without independent corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the alleged unaccounted transactions, are unsustainable. In the present case, the addition rested solely on third-party seized material without any corroborative evidence connecting it to the assessee's actual undisclosed purchases. Therefore, the impugned addition was deleted for both assessment years. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal accepted the prayer of the Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for remand. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for registration under section 12A in 2003, which was initially rejected. However, significant subsequent developments occurred, including the grant of provisional and permanent registration under the new regime (Forms 10AC and 10AB) for AY 2022-23 onwards, and exemption under section 10(46A). Crucially, the Hon'ble P&H High Court, in the assessee's own case, had set aside previous orders and remanded the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on the section 12AA application, considering Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal acknowledged that these developments, including the retrospective effect of the section 12AB registration, had a direct bearing on the appeals. The Learned CIT-DR also conceded that these subsequent developments were material. Therefore, the Tribunal held that it would be appropriate for these issues to be first examined by the lower authorities. Accordingly, all four impugned orders were set aside, and the assessments for all four years were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, taking into account the subsequent developments and the directions of the Hon'ble Court. All issues were kept open, and the assessee was directed to plead its case forthwith. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee remained unrepresented before the Ld. AO, which led to the framing of a best judgment assessment. During the first appeal, the assessee furnished additional evidence, prompting the Ld. CIT(A) to direct the Ld. AO to frame a fresh assessment. The Tribunal found no fault with this direction by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Tribunal clarified that all issues, including the legal grounds raised by the assessee, would remain open for adjudication before the lower authorities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.