Loading ITAT cases…
238 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the sale deed on which the capital gains were computed was void ab initio as it was executed without proper authority and its registration was later quashed by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the addition of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) in the hands of the assessee was deleted. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the sale deed on which the capital gains were computed was void ab initio as it was executed without proper authority and its registration was later quashed by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the addition of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) in the hands of the assessee was deleted. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the requirements for accumulation and investment, and the errors were clerical. Therefore, the exemption should not be denied on mere technicalities.
The Tribunal held that Section 69 of the Income Tax Act is applicable to unexplained investments, not to the receipt of loans. The receipt of a loan is a credit entry that should be considered under Section 68 of the Act, not Section 69. The AO erred in applying the wrong section and making an addition based on an incorrect assumption of facts.
The Tribunal held that invoking Section 69 for a credit entry representing a loan received was an incorrect assumption of facts and an invocation of the wrong provision of law, making the addition unsustainable. Regarding STCG, the denial of the cost of improvement was based on mere suspicion and doubts without proper verification, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no new material to reopen the assessment, as the issues were already examined during the original assessment. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal found the reopening to be based on a 'change of opinion' and thus invalid.
The Tribunal held that Section 69 of the Income Tax Act is applicable only to unexplained investments, not to credits received in bank accounts, even if the source is not explained. The AO invoked the wrong provision by treating the credit as an unexplained investment. Invoking the wrong provision of law on an incorrect assumption of facts vitiates the addition.
The Assessing Officer (AO) treated a credit of Rs. 5 Lacs in the assessee's bank account as an unexplained investment under Section 69, as the assessee failed to provide proof or details of the loan. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee's AR argued that the addition under Section 69 was incorrect as it applied to investments, not advances or loans, while the CIT-DR contended that quoting the wrong section does not invalidate the addition.
The Tribunal held that cash payments for hire charges, repairs & maintenance, and over-dimensional charges were justified due to business expediency, especially when paid to drivers and cleaners during long-haul transport. The disallowances made under Section 40A(3) were considered not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide proper opportunity to the assessee during assessment proceedings, particularly due to technical glitches in the IT portal. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal found that the assessment order was not made after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's income was from printing work and noted various sources claimed for the cash deposits. However, due to insufficient substantiation of financial statements from involved parties, the Tribunal estimated that Rs. 5 Lacs of the cash deposits remained unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear for the hearing. Despite the delay in filing and the assessee's negligence, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not have sufficient opportunity to examine the facts and evidence due to delayed submissions by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the AO for de novo assessment, directing the assessee to provide all required details.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had extended the due date for filing returns due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The audit report was on record before the intimation order was passed. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that delay in filing Form No. 10B should not disentitle the trust from claiming exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal noted that the TAR was filed before the assessment order was passed, and the delay in filing was due to the assessee's mother's serious illness and subsequent demise, which caused her significant personal distress and inability to concentrate. The Tribunal considered this a technical breach and a reasonable cause, not a deliberate omission.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's submission that the order was not received and that an e-appeal was filed before the dismissal of the manual appeal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO took a plausible view based on the facts and explanations provided by the assessee. The Pr. CIT's differing view was not sufficient grounds to invoke revisionary powers under Section 263.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea for another opportunity to substantiate its case. The issue of the impugned addition was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate the claim of cash received from the HUF with acceptable evidence. Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs.5 Lacs.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's negligence and failure to appear or represent the case. However, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to substantiate its case.
The tribunal rejected the assessee's legal ground challenging the validity of the reopening due to alleged non-application of mind by the Pr. CIT, finding due application of mind and proper approval. On merits, the tribunal noted that the husband's return did not reflect interest income from the account, and there was no evidence of contract payments being received in cash and deposited. However, cash withdrawals of Rs.7.20 Lacs were allowed to be set off against the deposits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the Tax Audit Report was due to reasonable cause, as the finalization of accounts and departmental audit were beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the provision for expected losses, recognized based on the Percentage of Completion Method (POCM) as per Accounting Standard-7, is not a contingent liability. The assessee had estimated contract costs exceeding revenues and recognized this as a provision, which was also reversed in subsequent years.
The Tribunal noted that the application was rejected due to an inadvertent mistake by the assessee. Accepting the submissions, the matter of registration was restored back to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its registration and for the CIT(A) to examine the application under the correct clause.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the Tax Audit Report was due to reasonable cause, as the finalization of accounts and departmental audit were beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10-IE is directory in nature and that the benefit of Section 115BAC should not be denied for AY 2022-23 simply because the AY 2021-22 return was belated. The denial for AY 2022-23, despite the return being filed in time, was not justified.
The Tribunal found that an unregistered will, even if not notarized, is admissible. The onus was on the revenue to prove the will was fabricated, which they failed to do. Similarly, the assessee provided sufficient evidence for agricultural income, and the revenue did not disprove it.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately considered the submissions and documentation provided by the assessee. Therefore, both issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to provide another opportunity for hearing based on the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument regarding the absence of a notice u/s 143(2) was not sustainable as the return was filed manually with considerable delay. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the sale and purchase of land for Rs. 1.07 Lacs and Rs. 9.34 Lacs respectively, within the same year, was evidenced by sale deeds, and the source of cash balance was sufficiently proven.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided cash flow statements and documentary evidence, including agricultural income and gifts, which were accepted in earlier years. The Tribunal also noted that the source of advances was duly established by the assessee through cash flow statements.
The Tribunal found that the issues flagged by the Pr.CIT, including disallowance of interest under Section 40(a)(ia) and the claim for interest and penalties, were not examined by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings. The assessee also failed to furnish the ECB loan agreement and other relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in noting that the assessee had not paid taxes in the UK, as the UK tax return showed income offered to tax. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the income, excluding the foreign assignment salary earned for work performed in the UK.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to inquire into the unexpired risk reserve issue constituted a 'no enquiry' case, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were justified.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the Tax Audit Report was due to reasonable cause, as the finalization of accounts and departmental audit were beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the application should not be rejected on mere technical grounds. The CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to rectify the error and then dispose of the application on merits.
The Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case, emphasizing principles of natural justice, but imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 for non-appearance.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings were justified as the issue of remission of trading liability was not examined by the AO. The assessee failed to provide complete reconciliation before the Tribunal to substantiate that the amount was already offered to tax.