Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 4 of 9
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee had filed a return declaring income sufficient to cover the business income estimated by the AO, and that the cash deposits were linked to business transactions, not unexplained money.
The Tribunal held that since the trust obtained Section 12AA registration during the pendency of assessment proceedings, the proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Act became applicable. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Section 11 and 12, and depreciation should be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the gain from the sale of office premises should be treated as long-term capital gain, as originally accepted by the AO. The assessee was not raising a fresh claim but seeking correct characterization of an already disclosed transaction.
The Tribunal held that the director's account was a running current account and not a loan or deposit. Settling such an account through journal entries does not amount to repayment under Section 269T, especially when no cash movement is involved.
The Tribunal held that while the seized material warranted enquiry, it did not provide sufficient corroboration to establish actual cash transactions or payments. Suspicion alone cannot substitute for proof, and the Revenue failed to bridge the evidentiary gaps.
The Tribunal noted that the orders of the authorities below were ex-parte and the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence. However, considering the assessee's request for a last opportunity, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the Rs. 20 Lacs deposited in the assessee's joint bank account with her husband originated from gifts received by the husband from his mother, which were documented in the mother's bank statements. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of LTCG exemption was a colorable device to introduce unaccounted income. The Tribunal confirmed the AO's action of denying exemption and treating the bogus LTCG as unexplained cash under Section 68, citing the admission of exit providers and the suspicious price movement of the shares.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided sufficient evidence for commission and loan transactions. For lorry tips, it was considered a customary business expense, and disallowance solely for lack of vouchers was disproportionate.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the appellant to explain the proposed enhancement. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application solely on the basis of the "religious-cum-charitable" classification without examining the predominant objects and actual activities. The Tribunal also noted that the claim of not filing a reply needed verification.
The Tribunal held that a trust being religious-cum-charitable is not a bar for Section 80G approval, especially considering Section 80G(5B). The CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application solely on this ground without proper examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing the CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals. The Assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as there was fresh tangible material. It also upheld the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, finding that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions related to the cash credits.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's consistent profit margins and audited accounts. Considering these factors, the Tribunal found the 8% estimation to be on the higher side and directed the AO to restrict the profit margin to 3% of total turnover.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal considered the withdrawal request and decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable to transactions prior to April 1, 2017, following a High Court decision. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that cash deposits were out of business receipts.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is allowable, especially when the issue had attained finality in a prior assessment year. The Tribunal also found that the vendor compliance expenses were adequately supported by evidence and were business-related.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was improperly made via a Section 143(1) intimation as the issue was debatable at that time. For Section 14A, it was held that disallowance should only consider investments yielding exempt income, and if the assessee's suo motu disallowance exceeds this, no further disallowance is warranted.
For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal held that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable to transactions prior to April 1, 2017, following a High Court decision. For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that cash deposits were out of business receipts.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits into gold loan accounts were satisfactorily explained by the assessee and directed the deletion of the addition under Section 69A. It also found the addition under Section 69C, based on a comparison of purchases and bank payments, to be baseless and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was improperly made via a Section 143(1) intimation as the issue was debatable at that time. For Section 14A, it was held that disallowance should only consider investments yielding exempt income, and if the assessee's suo motu disallowance exceeds this, no further disallowance is warranted.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) lacked the jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, as this power vested with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Citing various High Court decisions and a Supreme Court order for fresh consideration, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal without considering the assessee's specific request to keep the proceedings in abeyance due to pending Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) proceedings. The Tribunal noted that no reasons were recorded for not accepting this request, which directly impacted the appellate proceedings. This failure to consider the plea resulted in a denial of an effective opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal also acknowledged that substantive grounds on transfer pricing, Section 43B disallowance, and computational issues were raised. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the jurisdictional CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The jurisdictional CIT(A) is directed to consider the plea regarding pending MAP proceedings and the request for abeyance, and then adjudicate the grounds of appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions/adjustments, leaving all grounds raised by the assessee on merits open for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that export incentives received by the assessee are to be treated as operating income for computing the assessee's PLI. The reasoning was that if an incentive is directly connected with the operating activity and forms part of the operating results of the tested transaction, its exclusion would distort the operating margin of the tested party. The Tribunal noted that incentives received by comparable companies were treated as operating income. The AO/TPO was directed to recompute the assessee's operating margin after including export incentives. Consequently, grounds of appeal related to the TP margin adjustment were allowed for statistical purposes with these directions. The issue regarding the exclusion of comparables became academic and was left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition based solely on the deposit of SBNs was unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee's books of account were in order and that the cash deposits were explained by sales and collections, with no major deviations from previous years.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note was recorded, incriminating material was found, and a notice under Section 143(2) was not required as no return was filed. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the persons who allegedly provided the money.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note was recorded, incriminating material was found, and a notice under Section 143(2) was not required as no return was filed. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the persons who allegedly provided the money.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note was recorded, incriminating material was found, and a notice under Section 143(2) was not required as no return was filed. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the persons who allegedly provided the money.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note was recorded, incriminating material was found, and a notice under Section 143(2) was not required as no return was filed. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the persons who allegedly provided the money.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's grounds and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for de novo proceedings. The assessee was directed to participate without adjournment.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note was recorded, incriminating material was found, and a notice under Section 143(2) was not required as no return was filed. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the persons who allegedly provided the money.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the DRP's directions regarding the verification of brokerage expenditure and did not address objections related to the DVO's valuation report. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that while some disallowance was warranted due to incomplete documentation, the 10% disallowance was excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 2.5% of the impugned expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the jurisdictional assessing officer issuing the notice under Section 148, contrary to the mandatory scheme of faceless assessment. The assessment order and the impugned order were consequently deemed unlawful.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, noting it went to the root of the issue. In the interest of natural justice, the appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(e) for failure to furnish a return of income cannot be levied beyond the period prescribed for filing a belated return under Section 139(4) of the Act. The default cannot be considered to continue indefinitely after the statutory period for voluntary filing has expired.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not recorded any specific findings regarding the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to re-examine the additions in the interest of natural justice.
The tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Since the assessee had obtained the required registration, the tribunal saw no reason to decline the withdrawal application.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted another opportunity to substantiate the claim of agricultural income by producing relevant documentary evidence before the first appellate authority. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C for AY 2017-18 were initiated beyond the permissible six-year period, as the reckoning of this period should be from the date of receipt of seized documents by the assessee's AO, not the date of the search in the other entity. Therefore, the assessment was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that an addition on account of cash deposits in a bank account can be made under Section 69/69A of the Act, even in the absence of books of accounts. The Tribunal also rejected the contention that only the profit element embedded in the deposits could be taxed, as there was no material establishing a nexus between the business and the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the DVO was valid under section 142A(2) of the Income Tax Act, irrespective of the satisfaction with the assessee's accounts. However, it found that the DVO's report was untenable as it did not consider the assessee's objections.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had quashed notices under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as invalid, citing CBDT notifications. Due to a Supreme Court order setting aside similar High Court decisions for fresh consideration, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was set aside, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's prolonged stay outside India. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the realization of sundry debtors/advances outstanding from earlier years, which were duly reflected in the balance sheet before demonetisation. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and that the books of account were not rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had quashed notices under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as invalid, citing CBDT notifications. Due to a Supreme Court order setting aside similar High Court decisions for fresh consideration, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex parte without the assessee's explanation and supporting documents. Therefore, the Tribunal granted one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A).