Loading ITAT cases…
339 orders · Page 3 of 7
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme and was therefore invalid. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal applied the principle of telescoping, allowing the assessee to offset unaccounted income offered to tax against seized cash. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the impugned addition by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had already quashed proceedings against Shri N R Viswanathan under Section 153C, holding that the seized material did not pertain to him and the AO's satisfaction was invalid. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the material seized could not be said to belong or relate to the assessee, and thus the assessment orders were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 341 days in filing the appeal before it, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal also condoned the delay of 37 days before the FAA and set aside the FAA's order, remitting the matter back for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to independently examine the seized material and statements. Due to the quashing of proceedings against Shri NRV and the lack of proper investigation, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is directory in nature and not mandatory. The delay in filing Form 67 was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval was obtained from the incorrect authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that amortization of goodwill should be treated as a non-operating expense, following judicial precedents. The grounds related to depreciation on other intangibles were not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the principle of telescoping allows for the same income not to be taxed twice. Therefore, the unaccounted income offered by the assessee could be telescoped against the seized cash, confirming the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act deserves to be deleted. The Tribunal noted that the Coordinate Bench, in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years (AY 2018-19 to 2021-22), had granted relief not only on the ground that the impugned payments were not taxable in the hands of the recipient but also considered the fact that the assessee had exercised the option available under Section 44BB of the Act to offer income on a presumptive basis. The Tribunal found that when Section 44BB operates, it excludes the application of other provisions like Section 40(a)(i). The Tribunal also referred to its previous decisions which consistently held that payments for bareboat charter hire to a non-resident company without a PE in India are not taxable in India as per Article 7 read with Article 5 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct withholding tax under Section 195. The Tribunal respectfully followed the coordinate bench's decision and set aside the orders of the lower authorities, deleting the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the DRP. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the TPO made the upward transfer pricing adjustment based on an incorrect understanding of facts and without proper independent benchmarking. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the TPO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal applied the principle of telescoping, allowing the assessee to offset unaccounted income offered to tax against seized cash. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the impugned addition by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had already quashed proceedings against Shri N R Viswanathan under Section 153C, holding that the seized material did not pertain to him and the AO's satisfaction was invalid. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the material seized could not be said to belong or relate to the assessee, and thus the assessment orders were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that the addition was made solely on the basis of loose sheets and a third-party statement without any corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash transactions. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of penalty under Section 271D for similar reasons.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had already quashed proceedings against Shri N R Viswanathan under Section 153C, holding that the seized material did not pertain to him and the AO's satisfaction was invalid. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the material seized could not be said to belong or relate to the assessee, and thus the assessment orders were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had already quashed proceedings against Shri N R Viswanathan under Section 153C, holding that the seized material did not pertain to him and the AO's satisfaction was invalid. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the material seized could not be said to belong or relate to the assessee, and thus the assessment orders were rightly quashed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 13, 2023, was issued by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), Chennai (JAO), and not by the NFAC. This was found to be inconsistent with the 'e-assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022', notified by the CBDT on March 29, 2022. The Scheme mandates that assessment/re-assessment and issuance of notice under section 148 should be through automated allocation and in a faceless manner. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras in TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. DCIT had quashed and set aside notices issued by the JAO instead of the FAO, following the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Tribunal also considered the dismissal of the revenue's Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned notice under section 148 and consequential orders. However, following the jurisdictional High Court's order, the Tribunal kept open the rights and contentions of parties, including liberty to approach the bench if the Revenue succeeds before the Apex Court for revival of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's registered email ID was inoperative during the relevant period, causing non-receipt of hearing notices and subsequent non-appearance before the FAA. While deprecating the assessee's attitude, the Tribunal restored the matter to the FAA for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice and fair play.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not issued in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, making it invalid. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the notice and consequential orders.
The Tribunal held that loose sheets of paper, identified as ANN/SAA/KSI/LS/S-1, Pages 48 & 49, cannot be regarded as 'books of accounts' or 'documents' seized in the course of search for the purpose of admissibility under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal referred to judicial observations that distinguish between bound books of account and unbound sheets of paper, stating that the latter, even if filled with continuous accounts, are not considered books of account. The Supreme Court's decision in V.C. Shukla case was also cited, which held that entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, and only entries in regularly kept books of account are admissible. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if admissible, entries in account books are only corroborative evidence and require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness for fastening liability. Consequently, the seized loose sheets were not considered a valid basis for additions made under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of suppressed sales was not justified. It was decided that the same gross profit rate accepted for regular business should be applied to the alleged suppressed turnover, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme and was therefore invalid. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal set aside the notice and consequential orders.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of suppressed sales was not justified. It reasoned that the gross profit rate accepted for regular business should be applied to the alleged suppressed turnover, and the entire suppressed sales could not be treated as income.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the FAA for fresh adjudication as a last opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in estimating the profit at 8% as the assessee could not substantiate their profit margins. The penalty under section 271B was also upheld as the audit report was filed belatedly.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in estimating the profit at 8% as the assessee could not substantiate their profit margins. The penalty under section 271B was also upheld as the audit report was filed belatedly.
The Tribunal held that once a penalty has been imposed under section 271A for non-maintenance of books of accounts, a penalty under section 271B for non-furnishing of an audit report cannot be levied. This decision was based on High Court pronouncements.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's attitude in not responding was not commendable, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be given. The issues were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the loose sheets of paper, identified as ANN/SAA/KSI/LS/S-1, Pages 48 & 49, cannot be regarded as 'books of accounts' or 'documents' seized in the course of search. Applying the tests laid down in V.C. Shukla and Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs Union of India, the Tribunal found that these loose sheets are not books of account regularly kept in the course of business. The judgment in V.C. Shukla clarified that 'account books' would mean spiral notebooks or pads, but not loose sheets. Furthermore, even if entries are in regularly kept books of account, they are only corroborative evidence and require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and fasten liability. The Tribunal noted that Shri C P Anbunathan had initially denied the notings related to the assessee and later retracted statements implicating the assessee. The AO's satisfaction that the seized material belonged to the assessee was based on these disputed statements and loose sheets. Therefore, the additions made under Section 153C based on these inadmissible documents and retracted statements were unsustainable. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148A was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, making it invalid. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment order was set aside because the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, the penalty order stemming from it also lacked foundational basis and was consequently set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that none of the parameters required for invoking Section 153C were met. Specifically, there was no material found during the searches of the third parties that related to the assessee or had a bearing on his total income. The statements of the searched persons were considered untrustworthy and unreliable. The Tribunal noted the absence of a vital link demonstrating that the purported monies received by finance firms originated from the alleged suppliers and that the assessee was the ultimate beneficiary. The Tribunal also observed that the Revenue had made protective assessments in the hands of Shri C P Anbunathan and Shri Gobi for similar amounts, indicating that the Revenue was still searching for the correct recipient of the income. Therefore, the additions made under Section 153C were held to be unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 153C as there was no incriminating material found during the search that related to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was invalid as it did not comply with the mandatory faceless procedure prescribed by the CBDT's e-assessment scheme. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in similar cases.
The tribunal held that the notice under section 148A and the consequential order were not issued in accordance with the e-assessment Scheme, 2022, as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Therefore, the proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal found that the satisfaction notes recorded by the AO of the searched persons were not based on any incriminating material directly linking the seized documents to the assessee. The statements of third parties were contradictory and retracted, failing to establish a definitive link to the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition of the entire suppressed sales as income was not justified. It reasoned that the barcoding system used for inventory control was independent of purchase accounting and did not prove the existence of corresponding purchases.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148A was issued by the JAO, not the NFAC, which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned notice and consequential orders.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in estimating the profit at 8% as the assessee could not substantiate their profit margins. The penalty under section 271B was also upheld as the audit report was filed belatedly.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition of the entire suppressed sales as income was not justified. It reasoned that the barcoding system used for inventory control was independent of purchase accounting and did not prove the existence of corresponding purchases.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the AO of Shri C P Anbunathan, stating that the seized account books belonged to the assessee, was not valid. The Tribunal noted that Shri C P Anbunathan initially denied the entries related to the assessee, then made statements implicating the assessee, which he later retracted. The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in V.C. Shukla, which held that loose sheets of paper cannot be considered 'books of account' under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and are not admissible as evidence to charge a person with liability. Therefore, the seized material, described as 'loose sheets', could not form the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the impugned satisfaction was based on 'loose sheets' which are not admissible as evidence. Consequently, the additions made under Section 153C were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's attitude in not responding was not commendable, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be given. The issues were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition of the entire suppressed sales as income was not justified. It reasoned that the barcoding system used for inventory control was independent of purchase accounting and did not prove the existence of corresponding purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition of the entire suppressed sales as income was not justified. It reasoned that the barcoding system used for inventory control was independent of purchase accounting and did not prove the existence of corresponding purchases.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 and AY 2017-18. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found that the notice under section 148 was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the first proviso to section 147, as the original assessment was completed on 03.12.2016 and the notice was issued on 31.03.2021. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the actual reasons recorded for reopening, which is a procedural lapse. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the reassessment was based on a 'change of opinion' and quashed the reassessment order. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 148 was not maintainable because the assessment proceedings were still pending before the Assessing Officer, following the decisions in Trustees of H.E.N. the Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT and K.M. Pachayappan. The reassessment order for AY 2017-18 was consequently quashed. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal, finding the facts and circumstances identical to AY 2015-16, held that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleting the addition. No finding was given on the merits for AY 2017-18 due to the quashing of the reassessment order on legal grounds.
The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal as it was a duplicate filing. The tribunal considered the request and the petition for withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned delays in filing appeals and cross-objections. It ruled that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is admissible, even if not recorded in the books, and upheld transfer pricing adjustments concerning business support services, aligning with the principle of consistency. The disallowance under Section 14A was deemed permissible only up to the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal, after condoning delays in filing appeals and cross-objections, dealt with multiple grounds. On the issue of depreciation on goodwill, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, implying acceptance of the assessee's claim for certain assessment years. The Tribunal also adjudicated various transfer pricing issues, including the exclusion/inclusion of comparable companies.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and cross-objections. For the depreciation on goodwill issue, the Tribunal found the facts identical to a previous assessment year where it had allowed the claim and decided to dismiss the Revenue's grounds on this point for AY 2017-18, following precedent. The Tribunal also dealt with transfer pricing and Section 14A disallowance issues.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment notice under Section 148 cannot be issued when the assessment proceedings are still pending and the time for issuing a scrutiny assessment notice under Section 143(2) has not expired. This is because the original assessment is not yet terminated.