Loading ITAT cases…
317 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable as the cash was sourced from recorded sales and the assessee maintained proper books of accounts. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) was restricted to the extent of actual cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that the seized notebook and employee statements indicated that the amounts were customer deposits, representing a liability for the assessee, not income. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical ground and that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the mistake. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the application as filed under the correct clause and consider it on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, stating that the AO had failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications before accepting the assessee's claims. The AO's order was deemed erroneous as it was passed without proper examination of the issues raised.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made detailed inquiries regarding the source of loans advanced and interest on loans. The AO's view was considered a possible and plausible one, and it was not a case of lack of inquiry. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the seized notebook and employee statements indicated that the amounts were customer deposits, representing a liability for the assessee, not income. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts in question were deposits from customers for land purchases and real estate business activities, not undisclosed income. These deposits were liabilities for the assessee, not income, and were supported by acknowledgments, statements, and refund details. Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as these transactions were not recorded in the regular books of account.
The Tribunal held that the cash receipts in question were deposits from customers for land purchases and real estate business activities, not undisclosed income. These deposits were liabilities for the assessee, not income, and were supported by acknowledgments, statements, and refund details. Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as these transactions were not recorded in the regular books of account.
While noting the assessee's negligence, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted another opportunity to substantiate the case. The impugned order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the excel sheet entries primarily represented deposits/advances received in the real estate business, not unaccounted income. The onus was on the assessee to prove the source of cash seized, which they failed to do conclusively, but the initial addition based on the excel sheet was deleted. However, a portion of the cash seized was confirmed as unaccounted money.
The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) appeared virtually and stated that the appeal was duplicate and requested it be dismissed. The revenue did not object. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appeal is dismissed as duplicate.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit, the Revenue authorities were precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the TPO exceeded his jurisdiction by re-characterizing the CCDs as equity. It is a well-settled proposition that CCDs constitute debt, and interest payable thereon is a deductible expenditure until conversion into equity. The Tribunal relied on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Secure Meters Ltd. (321 ITR 611) which held that debentures, whether convertible or not, are loans. Therefore, the upward adjustment of Rs.9,58,98,001/- on account of interest on CCDs was deleted. Regarding depreciation on goodwill, the Tribunal found that the DRP's reliance on Explanation 3 and 7 to Section 43(1) was misplaced as these explanations are not relevant for the impugned AY or the nature of the transaction (slump sale). The Tribunal noted that amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and do not affect the allowability of depreciation for prior years. Based on judicial pronouncements and the prospective nature of the amendments, the Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill arising from a slump sale is allowable under Section 32 of the Act. Accordingly, the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill was deleted. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had credited 'bad debts recovered' for Rs.1 Crores as business income and offered it to tax in the Profit & Loss Account. Taxing the same amount again under Section 69A would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible. The explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of funds was considered plausible.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was primarily based on loose sheets and a bald statement without any corroboration. The seized documents lacked essential details like dates and payee acknowledgement, and no independent investigation was carried out. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents regarding 'dumb documents', the Tribunal found no credible evidence to support the alleged on-money payment.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on a 'dumb document' (loose sheet) and bald statements without corroboration. It emphasized the need for independent evidence to prove cash payments and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the Rs. 500/- fee was appropriate as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds and not merits. The Tribunal also granted one more opportunity for a denovo assessment by the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. The Id. DR conceded this point, and the tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee maintained proper books of accounts and had sufficient cash balance as on 08-11-2016, evidenced by their books. The additions were based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. The cash deposits were duly evidenced by the books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that while CSR expenditure is an application of income and not allowed under Section 37(1) as per Explanation 2, it can be allowed under Sections 30 to 36 if the conditions are fulfilled. The contribution to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund was found eligible for deduction under Section 80G, considering it is a prescribed mode of CSR activities and amendments to Finance Act, 2015, allowed tax benefits for such donations.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligence but, adhering to natural justice, granted another opportunity to substantiate the case before the lower authorities. The impugned order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were duly recorded in the assessee's books with sufficient cash balance, and the AO's inquiry was initiated after more than 3 years. The issue of 80G deduction was restored to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were from realization of recorded sales from sundry debtors and thus Section 69A was not applicable. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of bad debts to the extent it exceeded the unrecovered balance.
The Tribunal held that substantive additions made in the hands of the assessee for amounts already added substantively in the hands of other entities or declared under the PMGKY scheme were not justified. However, additions for which no plausible explanation was available were confirmed.
The Tribunal decided that the transfer pricing adjustment in relation to royalty payment for AY 2008-09 should be partly deleted. The Tribunal noted that the TPO herself observed that the average royalty rate in the automotive sector from a study of 35 licenses was 4.7% and the median was 4%, which is higher than the assessee's average royalty payment of 4.22% (revised figure from the judgment). Considering the peculiar nature of the automotive industry involving exclusive licenses and advanced technology, the Tribunal found the industry average rate of 4.7% ascertained in the immediately preceding year to be a good benchmark. The Tribunal calculated that the assessee paid an excess royalty of 0.3% (5% - 4.7%), which amounts to Rs. 21.83 crores. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the remaining adjustment of Rs. 65.05 crores (Rs. 86.88 crores - Rs. 21.83 crores) made by the TPO. The principle established is that if the assessee's royalty payment is within or below the industry average, especially in a technology-intensive sector, no transfer pricing adjustment is warranted.
While acknowledging the assessee's negligence in substantiating the source of cash deposits, the Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, granted another opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the action of the Ld. CIT(TP) to revise the TPO's order under section 263 was not legally sustainable. Firstly, it was held that since the final assessment order for AY 2018-19 had been quashed by the Tribunal as time-barred, there was no existing order in the eyes of law. Applying the legal maxim 'sublato Fundmento Credit opus' (if the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls) and the Supreme Court's decision in Badarinath v. Tamil Nadu, the Tribunal concluded that the TPO's order, which was part of the assessment process, was also non-est. Therefore, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(TP) was considered null and void. Secondly, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(TP) erred in holding the TPO's order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It noted that the TPO's view was plausible and in conformity with several judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court's in Jindal Steel and Power Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal relied on the principle laid down in Max India – [2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC) that where two views are possible and the AO/TPO has taken one view, it cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
While acknowledging the assessee's negligence in substantiating the source of cash deposits, the Tribunal granted another opportunity based on the principle of natural justice. This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Assessing Officer denied the exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and disallowed depreciation on fixed assets claimed as application of income in previous years. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action due to the delay in filing Form 10BB. The Tribunal noted that the application for condonation of delay was not decided by the CIT(E) within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 40 lakhs was not sustainable as it was part of the assessee's accepted turnover and constituted trade receipts. The direction by the CIT(A) regarding the remaining cash deposits was also deleted due to a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the loan received by the assessee cannot be treated as deemed dividend as the assessee was not a shareholder in the lending company. The issue of VRS payments was remanded back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal is hearing two appeals filed by the assessee. The appeals are against separate but identical orders passed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal is hearing both appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A). The specific grounds of appeal and the Tribunal's decision are not detailed in the provided snippet.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid as it was based on a 'change of opinion' by the AO, without any new material or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose true facts. The original assessment order showed a comprehensive analysis of the capital gains issue.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were linked to multiple sources, including sales, trade advances, and partners' capital, not exclusively sales as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the increase in wages was justified by the assessee's wholesale business operations and increased sales. For the SBNs, the Tribunal found that since the audited books of accounts were not rejected and the SBNs were part of the accepted turnover, a separate addition under Section 69A was impermissible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence for a gift of Rs. 31 lakhs and agricultural income claims, remanding these issues to the AO. For another addition, the Tribunal found the AO's rejection of the assessee's explained income without proper justification, restricting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the documents and details provided by the assessee. It decided to give the assessee one last opportunity to present its case before the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to submit explanations and documents regarding the nature and source of the deposits before the AO. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons adequate. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to partially confirm an addition, after a remand report that seemed to support the assessee, to be incomprehensible.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in passing the final assessment order dated November 10, 2017, without first issuing a draft assessment order as mandated by Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Relying on decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Vijay Television Pvt. Ltd. and GE OIL & Gas India Pvt. Ltd., as well as other judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that this procedural lapse renders the final assessment order bad in law. The Tribunal reasoned that the failure to provide the assessee an opportunity to raise objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, by bypassing the requirement of a draft assessment order, vitiates the assessment. Consequently, the final assessment order for AY 2010-11 was quashed. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning, quashing the final assessment order as well, as the legal issue was identical and there was no change in facts or law. All other grounds raised in both appeals were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in passing the final assessment order dated November 10, 2017, without first issuing a draft assessment order as mandated by Section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Relying on decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Vijay Television Pvt. Ltd. and GE OIL & Gas India Pvt. Ltd., as well as other judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that this procedural lapse renders the final assessment order bad in law. The Tribunal reasoned that the failure to provide the assessee an opportunity to raise objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, by bypassing the requirement of a draft assessment order, vitiates the assessment. Consequently, the final assessment order for AY 2010-11 was quashed. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning, quashing the final assessment order as well, as the legal issue was identical and there was no change in facts or law. All other grounds raised in both appeals were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the TP adjustment based on a wrong assumption that the Tribunal had previously confirmed such action. The CIT(A) also incorrectly relied on the assessee accepting similar additions for AY 2013-14 without proper application of mind. The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 and 2009-10, the Tribunal had held that when internal comparable transactions (non-AE sales) are available, external comparable data should not be used. Therefore, the issue of TP adjustment was restored to the CIT(A) to decide afresh as per law. Regarding the disallowances of demurrage and trade commission, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for the disallowances, which amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and denial of justice. These grounds were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a speaking order. For the excise duty refund, the Tribunal admitted the grounds and restored the issue to the AO for verification. If the AO finds that the amount was taxed in AY 2003-04 due to the VSVS scheme, it should not be taxed again in AY 2008-09.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence for a gift of Rs. 31 lakhs and agricultural income claims, remanding these issues to the AO. For another addition, the Tribunal found the AO's rejection of the assessee's explained income without proper justification, restricting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence for a gift of Rs. 31 lakhs and agricultural income claims, remanding these issues to the AO. For another addition, the Tribunal found the AO's rejection of the assessee's explained income without proper justification, restricting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the denial of a personal hearing through video conferencing violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside.
The tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, which advises against filing appeals below Rs. 60 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act for SBN deposits was not sustainable. The assessee's explanation that the deposits were business receipts, supported by VAT returns and previous year's filings, was considered probable. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate income at 5% on total bank credits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in making additions without fully considering the assessee's submissions and the CBDT instruction. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition, allowing the assessee's appeal.