Loading ITAT cases…
326 orders · Page 1 of 7
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue (ITA Nos. 695 to 702/Chny/2023). For the Assessee's appeals, ITA Nos. 589 & 590/Chny/2023 were dismissed. ITA No. 591/Chny/2023 was partly allowed. Regarding the legal grounds raised by the Assessee concerning Section 153D approval and DIN, the Tribunal rejected the challenge to the Section 127 order as administrative. While acknowledging the Assessee's arguments on the approval process and DIN, the Tribunal refrained from delving into the DIN issue as it is sub-judice before the Supreme Court, keeping the legal grounds open for future adjudication. The Tribunal found that the approval under Section 153D was given following due procedure and after prima facie satisfaction, and thus, the ground was not accepted. The specific findings on the substantive issues of quarry expenses and unaccounted sales are not detailed in the provided excerpt, other than stating that all issues were appropriately dealt with and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee, KEB Hana Bank, in IT(TP)A No. 122/Chny/2024. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that they had inadvertently filed two appeals against the same impugned order for the assessment year 2021-22. The assessee intended to pursue the other appeal, IT(TP)A No. 126/Chny/2024, which was listed before a different bench of the Tribunal. The revenue did not object to the assessee's request for dismissal. Therefore, the Tribunal found the current appeal to be infructuous and dismissed it accordingly. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment order was decided.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were passed ex-parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the belated filing. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, provided the delay is condoned by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for DTVSV-2024 and the Ld.DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the orders of both the AO and CIT(A) were passed ex-parte without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision was correct, relying on its own prior ruling. It found that the amendment to Section 194A, which would have made recurring deposits taxable, was applicable only from AY 2015-16 and not for the assessment year 2010-11 in question.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of assistance to the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) notices. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present complete details.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBC(3) only requires the maintenance of records indicating the identity (name and address) of the donors, not necessarily the source or creditworthiness, especially when such donations are applied for charitable purposes. The AO and CIT(A) erred in applying Section 68 of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 355 days, finding reasonable cause and no latches on the part of the assessee. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after considering the condonation petition.
The assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, and the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished some bills, photographs, and bank statements explaining the source of cash deposits. To meet the ends of justice, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty for non-compliance with multiple notices under Section 142(1) should be restricted to the first default. The penalty was reduced to ₹.10,000/- for each assessment year.
The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, subject to the condition of payment of Rs. 5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority. The Assessing Officer is to decide the issue afresh after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the revenue. For the assessee's appeals, some were dismissed, while one was partly allowed concerning unexplained cash mobilized.
The Tribunal held that a deduction under Section 80IA can be claimed for the first time in a return filed pursuant to a notice under Section 153A, provided the assessment is abated. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 426 days in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This remand is conditional upon the assessee paying ₹10,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority within 30 days, after which the Assessing Officer must consider the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities passed orders without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal addressed the legal grounds raised by the Assessee first. It rejected the challenge to the Section 127 order as administrative and not appealable. Regarding the approval under Section 153D, the Tribunal found that the AO had submitted proposals with documents, and the approval was given after prima facie satisfaction, following due procedure. It held that detailed findings on each document were not necessary for a valid approval. On the issue of DIN, the Tribunal noted that the matter was sub-judice before the Supreme Court and refrained from adjudicating, keeping the legal grounds open for future adjudication in light of the Apex Court's final decision. The Tribunal then dealt with the substantive issues. For AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13, the Revenue's appeals concerning quarry expenses and unaccounted sales were dismissed. For AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15, the Revenue's appeal on quarry expenses was dismissed. For AY 2015-16, the Revenue's appeals on quarry expenses, unaccounted sales, and undisclosed receipts were dismissed. For AY 2016-17, the Revenue's appeals on quarry expenses and undisclosed receipts were dismissed, and the Assessee's appeal on quarry expenses was also dismissed. For AY 2017-18, the Revenue's appeals on quarry expenses, undisclosed receipts, undisclosed closing stock, and undisclosed expenses were dismissed, and the Assessee's appeal on quarry expenses was dismissed. For AY 2018-19, the Revenue's appeals on quarry expenses, unexplained cash found, and alleged unexplained cash mobilized were dismissed, and the Assessee's appeal on quarry expenses was rejected. However, the Assessee's appeal concerning unexplained cash mobilized by the assessee was allowed. Consequently, some appeals were dismissed, and one was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the purported notings on loose sheets and statements relied upon by the AO were unjustified on facts and law. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to provide the assessee with a copy of the statement used against them and an opportunity for cross-examination, vitiating the addition.
On the issue of transfer pricing adjustment for electricity, the Tribunal noted that the consuming unit paid Rs.5.50 per unit plus wheeling charges. It observed that the assessee's eligible power unit had benchmarked the rate at Rs.5.50 per unit, which was the rate charged by TNEB to industrial consumers, excluding wheeling charges. The Tribunal found that the consuming unit was paying wheeling charges to TNEB over and above the industrial rate. The Tribunal held that the assessee had rightly applied CUP parameters by making a like-for-like comparison, as the benchmark rate of Rs.5.50 per unit was exclusive of wheeling charges, and the eligible unit had adopted the same transfer rate without adjustment for wheeling charges. Therefore, the downward adjustment of Rs.66,94,650/- was deleted. Regarding the disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB), the Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in curtailing the deduction in the pre-amended period and directed the deletion of the disallowance of Rs.95,500/-, following a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. On the disallowance of provision for warranty, the Tribunal, respectfully following its own previous decisions in the assessee's case, allowed the claim and directed the AO to delete the addition. It also held that the adjustment made under Section 115JB was unsustainable as the provision was in the nature of an ascertained liability. Concerning the re-computation of MAT credit, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify and allow the consequential MAT credit eligible to the assessee for the AY in accordance with law.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the return of income had been condoned by the DGIT. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the case back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider the relevant evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the 30-day delay in filing the appeal after finding the reasons bona fide. Subsequently, it dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024 for settlement of the tax dispute.
The Tribunal decided to adjudicate the appeals based on the common issues and the lead year AY 2011-12. The Revenue's grounds of appeal challenge the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of quarry expenses to 30%, delete additions for unaccounted sales of blue metals, and hold that additions were made without incriminating materials. The Revenue argues that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that quarry license holders were mere name lenders, the assessee did not provide verifiable accounts, and the Departmental Valuation Officer used scientific methods to quantify excavated materials. The assessee, conversely, supports the CIT(A)'s findings and challenges the AO's jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that elaborate arguments were made by both sides, with references to case laws and written submissions considered. The judgment indicates that the Tribunal will provide its adjudication after hearing rival submissions and perusing the records. The specific findings on each issue are not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the structure suggests a detailed analysis of the grounds raised by the Revenue and the arguments presented by both parties.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the attribution of notional income towards deemed brand promotion/development was covered in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal's own orders for AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17. Specifically, in the order for AY 2016-17, the Tribunal followed earlier decisions and allowed the assessee's claim, holding that the adjustment towards deemed brand promotion was not an international transaction. Therefore, this ground was allowed. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the Tribunal noted that similar issues were covered by earlier decisions, wherein the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned; if no exempt income was earned, no disallowance would be called for. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. The levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was found to be consequential and mandatory, and the AO was directed to levy interest in accordance with law. This ground was dismissed. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue. For AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, the issues of quarry expenses and unaccounted sales were decided against the Revenue. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the issue of quarry expenses was decided against the Revenue. For AY 2015-16, issues of quarry expenses, unaccounted sales, and undisclosed receipts were decided against the Revenue. For AY 2016-17, issues of quarry expenses and undisclosed receipts were decided against the Revenue. For AY 2017-18, issues of quarry expenses, undisclosed receipts, undisclosed closing stock, and undisclosed expenses were decided against the Revenue. For AY 2018-19, issues of quarry expenses, unexplained cash found, and alleged unexplained cash mobilized were decided against the Revenue. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 concerning quarry expenses. However, the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 591/Chny/2023 for AY 2018-19 regarding unexplained cash mobilized was partly allowed. Regarding the legal ground on DIN, the Tribunal noted that the matter was sub-judice before the Supreme Court and refrained from delving into it, keeping the legal grounds open for future adjudication. The challenge to the order under Section 127 was rejected as it was an administrative order. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument that approval under Section 153D was mechanical, stating it was given after due procedure. The ratio decidendi for dismissing the Revenue's appeals is that the CIT(A)'s findings were not found to be erroneous, and the legal grounds raised by the assessee were either rejected or kept open.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea of non-cooperation from the auditor and lack of awareness due to e-proceedings. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, subject to payment of costs and condonation of delay.
The assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, and the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. Since the scheme aims to settle pending tax disputes, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn. The Cross Objection also became academic and was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, along with his brother and mother, sold their shares in Kailash Shipping Services Private Limited. The assessee's brother, Sri. Kamal Chilaka, who was a CEO and shareholder, entered into a separate CEO agreement with the buyer for separate consideration. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's brother's case for the same assessment year was restored to the CIT(A) by this Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Since the issues in both cases were identical, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand the issue to the CIT(A) to await the outcome of the appeal in the case of Mr. Kamal Chilaka. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the assessee's appeal afresh after granting an opportunity to the assessee. If the brother's appeal was allowed on the legal ground of reopening validity, the present case would be adjudicated independently on merits. All other arguments regarding the valuation of shares and the correctness of assigning a component as non-compete fees, especially in the absence of a separate agreement, were left open to be agitated before the First Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee was allowed to withdraw both appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was without prejudice to any future application by the assessee regarding the settlement.
The Tribunal allowed the addition of gift received from spouse as explained and partly allowed the addition from own sources. The disallowance of interest payment was also allowed as it was for business purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 as gift from spouse, deleted 50% of the addition related to own capital contribution (Rs. 7,41,042), and allowed the interest payment on a loan taken for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure on a loan for renovating the hostel building is an allowable business expenditure. However, the ground regarding disallowance of rent payment was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the revenue. For the assessee's appeals, some were dismissed, while one was partly allowed concerning unexplained cash mobilized.
The Tribunal allowed the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- received as gift from the spouse, and partly allowed the addition related to own capital contribution by deleting 50% of the amount. The disallowance of interest payment was also directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the cash balance. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) in restricting the addition was justified.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for DTVSV-2024 and the Ld.DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained cash found at the assessee's father's residence, as it was already taxed in the father's hands. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of unexplained cash mobilized for election expenditure, noting that the assessee's father and others provided statements regarding the cash transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee was allowed to withdraw both appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. The dismissal was without prejudice to any future application by the assessee regarding the settlement.
The Tribunal held that Section 189 of the Act cannot be invoked for a dissolved firm that has not carried on any business in the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the PCIT's order invoking Section 263 was justified.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue. For AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, the issues of quarry expenses and unaccounted sales were decided against the Revenue. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the issue of quarry expenses was decided against the Revenue. For AY 2015-16, issues of quarry expenses, unaccounted sales, and undisclosed receipts were decided against the Revenue. For AY 2016-17, issues of quarry expenses and undisclosed receipts were decided against the Revenue. For AY 2017-18, issues of quarry expenses, undisclosed receipts, undisclosed closing stock, and undisclosed expenses were decided against the Revenue. For AY 2018-19, issues of quarry expenses, unexplained cash found, and alleged unexplained cash mobilized were decided against the Revenue. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 concerning quarry expenses. However, the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 591/Chny/2023 for AY 2018-19 regarding unexplained cash mobilized was partly allowed. Regarding the legal ground on DIN, the Tribunal noted that the matter was sub-judice before the Supreme Court and refrained from delving into it, keeping the legal grounds open for future adjudication. The challenge to the order under Section 127 was rejected as it was an administrative order. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument that approval under Section 153D was mechanical, stating it was given after due procedure. The ratio decidendi for dismissing the Revenue's appeals is that the CIT(A)'s findings were not found to be erroneous, and the legal grounds raised by the assessee were either rejected or kept open.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was established, the penalty for non-compliance with multiple notices under Section 142(1) should be restricted to the first default. The penalty was reduced to ₹.10,000/- for each assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the seized material was a 'dumb document' lacking complete and unambiguous information. There was no corroborative evidence to link the seized material to the assessee or to prove the actual transfer of money, and the assessee's retraction was considered valid.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared income under capital gains. To verify the correctness of transactions and the amount deducted from business income, the Tribunal remitted the file back to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the Addl/JCIT(A) and directed the Addl/JCIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the current appeals, acknowledging the Managing Director's personal hardships. In the interest of justice and fair play, it remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard, noting the non-receipt of hearing notices for the original appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) omitted to consider the claim for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) despite allowing exemption under Sections 11 & 12. The Tribunal found that the issues regarding the inclusion of building fund in gross receipts and the depreciation claim required re-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the current appeals, acknowledging the Managing Director's personal hardships. In the interest of justice and fair play, it remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard, noting the non-receipt of hearing notices for the original appellate proceedings.