Loading ITAT cases…
282 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal noted that the AO framed the assessment without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee's contentions regarding unexplained cash credits and deposits from relatives were not properly considered. The issue of ESI remittances was also found to have been decided based on an incorrect due date.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the return, citing delays in statutory audit due to the pandemic. This application was pending before the CCIT, following a CBDT circular allowing condonation for such delays. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the vegetable business operates on low margins due to perishable nature and wastages. Considering the business background, the Tribunal reduced the profit estimation from 8% to 4% of the turnover.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for the ₹10,90,000/- as being from a jewel loan was supported by evidence and could not be disbelieved. The Tribunal directed deletion of the addition of ₹13,67,312/-. Regarding the addition of ₹1,93,857/-, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not sought any explanation and set aside the addition, restoring the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had offered dividend income of Rs.70.15 Lacs to tax as income from other sources, with taxes paid as per Section 115BBDA. Since no expenditure or losses were claimed against this income, and taxes were paid according to the statute, no disallowance under Section 14A could be made.
The tribunal noted that the tax effect of the relief granted by the Ld.CIT(A) was below ₹60 lakhs, which is the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT as per CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024. The Ld.DR conceded that the appeal was covered by the circular.
The tribunal noted the submission regarding the duplicity of the appeal and that the assessee did not appear. Therefore, the tribunal considered the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the purchases and added them to the assessee's income as unexplained expenditure under section 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed this. The assessee's representative stated that the plots were purchased in AY 2014-15 but omitted from the books and payments were made from regular accounts.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had given loans totaling ₹19,50,000 to ten parties, as per his balance sheet. Nine of these parties provided confirmation of the loans, with one party being deceased. The Tribunal directed deletion of ₹14.5 lakhs received from nine creditors, and confirmed the balance addition of ₹3.5 lakhs.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawals from the assessee's account and gifts received by the assessee from her son and brothers. These amounts collectively explained the cash deposits made by the assessee, totaling ₹26.45 lakhs, which covered the impugned addition.
The Tribunal held that the lease agreement stipulated that the lessee (CTS) was responsible for electricity charges based on consumption. However, the assessee debited these expenses to its profit and loss account without offering the reimbursement from the lessee as other income. Therefore, the assessee's ground was found to be devoid of merit.
The Tribunal held that the CPC could not have made the adjustment to deny the Section 80P deduction under Section 143(1)(a) for the Assessment Year 2019-20, as the enabling provisions for such an adjustment were introduced only from April 1, 2021.
The tribunal acknowledged the submission of the AR regarding the duplicate nature of the appeals. The Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) raised no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) were passed ex-parte. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO and Ld.CIT(A). Relying on the Supreme Court decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo assessment.
The tribunal acknowledged the submission of the AR regarding the duplicate nature of the appeals. The Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) raised no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on uncorroborated seized documents and email communications, finding insufficient evidence to link them to the assessee's tax evasion. However, it confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of additions based on gross profit rates for unaccounted sales.
The Tribunal followed its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case, holding that prize winnings from unsold lottery tickets are part of business income. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on uncorroborated seized documents and email communications, finding insufficient evidence to link them to the assessee's tax evasion. However, it confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of additions based on gross profit rates for unaccounted sales.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on uncorroborated seized documents and email communications, finding insufficient evidence to link them to the assessee's tax evasion. However, it confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of additions based on gross profit rates for unaccounted sales.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on uncorroborated seized documents and email communications, finding insufficient evidence to link them to the assessee's tax evasion. However, it confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of additions based on gross profit rates for unaccounted sales.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on uncorroborated seized documents and email communications, finding insufficient evidence to link them to the assessee's tax evasion. However, it confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of additions based on gross profit rates for unaccounted sales.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on uncorroborated seized documents and email communications, finding insufficient evidence to link them to the assessee's tax evasion. However, it confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of additions based on gross profit rates for unaccounted sales.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on uncorroborated seized documents and email communications, finding insufficient evidence to link them to the assessee's tax evasion. However, it confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of additions based on gross profit rates for unaccounted sales.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on uncorroborated seized documents and email communications, finding insufficient evidence to link them to the assessee's tax evasion. However, it confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of additions based on gross profit rates for unaccounted sales.
The Tribunal, following the decision in Conceria International (P.) Ltd., held that Section 234E is a substantive provision that creates a liability for late filing of TDS returns, irrespective of Section 200A(1)(c). This liability is attracted upon failure to deliver the statement within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee, and followed High Court decisions on the matter. For deferred revenue income, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's method of revenue recognition based on the accrual concept and its consistent treatment in prior years.
The Tribunal held that since the cash sales and collections from debtors were reflected in the assessee's books of accounts and offered to tax, adding them again would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that there was no prohibition to deal with SBNs until December 31, 2016, as per the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Ordinance, 2016.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits of Rs. 10 Lacs in the assessee's bank account, added on a best judgment basis, were out of past salary savings from overseas employment. Since the assessee was employed outside India and believed her income was below the taxable limit, a penalty for non-filing the return was not justified.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, restored the assessment to the file of the AO in the interest of natural justice, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 148 on a deceased person, when the revenue was aware of the death, is illegal and a nullity. Following the judgments of the Gujarat and Delhi High Courts, the notice and all consequential proceedings were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's business model involved collecting payments from customers, and that the acceptance of old SBNs, even if in violation of certain notifications, could not be the sole reason for rejecting the genuine explanation of the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the source of deposits was not disputed and was out of ordinary business sales credited to the books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that prize winnings from unsold lottery tickets should be considered as business income and allowed expenses related to unsold tickets. This decision followed a previous ruling by the Mumbai Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed this deduction for several prior years and had e-filed the audit report before the processing of the return under Section 143(1). Citing Supreme Court precedents regarding the timely filing of audit reports before the culmination of assessment proceedings, the Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) had not passed the order in accordance with the law, specifically failing to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which would render the statutory right of appeal meaningless. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order.
The CBDT revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT from ₹50 lakhs to ₹60 lakhs. The appeal filed by the Revenue was found to be below the revised monetary limit.
The Tribunal held that adding the entire investment in the assessee's hands was not justified as the property was jointly owned and rental income was offered proportionately. The admission during survey was not binding and could be rebutted. The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 10 Lacs.
The Tribunal held that the sanction granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) u/s.151 was mechanical, as it was a mere endorsement of 'Yes' without proper application of mind. Consequently, the notice issued u/s.148 was vitiated.
The Tribunal disagreed with the AO's action, accepting the assessee's explanation that the outstanding amounts were fees collected by the company for CT scanner usage and were promptly transferred to the trust. Therefore, the addition of notional interest was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the modus operandi alleged by the AO for diversion of funds was not sufficiently proved with material evidence.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer, solely based on loose sheets without corroboration, were not adequate to draw adverse inferences. The Tribunal deleted these additions, stating that such documents lack evidentiary value without independent corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal decided that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. The Revenue failed to prove that the assessee trust violated Section 13(1)(c) by diverting funds or that the company was a specified concern for such violation.
The Tribunal held that the loose sheets, lacking details like dates, payees, and source of funds, were 'dumb documents' with no evidentiary value. Additions based solely on these uncorroborated documents were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a plausible explanation for the SBN deposits, attributing them to credit sales of fireworks made before demonetization. The AO had not rejected the assessee's audited books of accounts or sales figures.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided explanations for the cash deposits arising from sales, loan repayments, and service receipts, supported by documentary evidence. Relying on a previous decision in the case of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., the Tribunal held that mere violation of RBI notifications or the demonetization scheme does not automatically make the source of cash deposits unexplained, especially when the business model and sales are analyzed. The Tribunal emphasized that additions under Section 69 can only be made if the nature and source of investment are not explained.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was passed ex parte without hearing the assessee, which violates natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the Ld.CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 148 days. However, it was noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was considered not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10BB came into effect from AY 2023-24 onwards, not for AY 2021-22. The assessee had a valid 12A registration until AY 2021-22 and had applied for new registration under the amended Act. The Tribunal found that the CPC and CIT(A) erred in disallowing the exemption.
The Tribunal, following the decision in Conceria International (P.) Ltd., held that Section 234E is a substantive provision that creates a liability for late filing of TDS returns, irrespective of Section 200A(1)(c). This liability is attracted upon failure to deliver the statement within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to re-open the assessment framed under Section 143(3) after four years without satisfying the additional condition precedent under the first proviso to Section 147. The re-opening was considered a review of the AO's own order, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that income accrues only when the assessee acquires a right to receive it. The payment was contingent on the review and acceptance of data by the other party, and since this condition was not met for the disputed amount, it was considered hypothetical income.