Loading ITAT cases…
391 orders · Page 1 of 8
The Tribunal held that at the time of granting registration under Section 12AB, the Commissioner can only examine the objects of the society and not the actual activities carried out. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ananda Social and Educational Trust vs. CIT, which clarified that for registration purposes, the term 'activities' includes 'proposed activities.' The Commissioner must verify if the objects are genuinely charitable and if the proposed activities align with these objects. The judgment distinguished this from situations where registration is sought to be cancelled, where actual activities are examined. The Tribunal also referenced CIT vs. International Health Care Education and Research Institute, stating that registration under Section 12AA (and by extension, 12AB) does not automatically entitle a trust to exemption under Sections 10 and 11; the Assessing Officer must verify the genuineness of exemption claims during assessment. Consequently, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E)'s file for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) is to grant registration under Section 12AB after verifying the charitable nature of the objects and the genuineness of activities, ensuring no violations as per the Explanation to Section 12AB(4), and affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal first addressed the delay in filing the appeal. Based on the uncontroverted affidavit filed by the assessee, which was supported by the legal position laid down in M. Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V. Laxmi Narain Rao, the Tribunal found reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the registration application solely because the assessee did not respond to the show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued on February 6, 2026, and the impugned order was passed on March 16, 2026. The Tribunal held that this period of approximately one month did not afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a de novo disposal of the application, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that grounds 2, 3, and 4 challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings were not pressed and were dismissed. Ground 1 was general and dismissed. Regarding ground 5 (and 6, which were remitted back), the Tribunal observed that while the AO was justified in resorting to estimation due to non-compliance with notices, the estimation must not be vindictive or capricious. It should be based on past history or comparable cases, as held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Esufal H.M. Abdulali [1973] 90 ITR 271. The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided the basis for adopting 10% profit estimation, nor was it clear if it was based on past history or comparable cases. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the AO to adopt the net profit based on the assessee's past history or comparable cases in the same line of business, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The entire assessment was remitted back to the AO for de novo disposal.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) ought to have called for an explanation from the assessee if any omission or deficiency was found, before drawing an adverse view. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had enjoyed 12A registration from 2019 onwards. The passing of a cryptic order without confronting the assessee and asking for explanations regarding the income and expenditure account for the year ending 31.03.2025 constituted a per-se violation of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the Section 12AB registration was set aside, and the application was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to comply with the principles of natural justice and grant a proper opportunity to the assessee. Regarding the denial of approval under Section 80G, since it was consequential to the denial of Section 12AB registration, that application was also restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after the decision on the Section 12AB application. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC was not justified in confirming the penalty under Section 270A. The Tribunal noted that the appeal against the original assessment order had been restored to the Assessing Officer by the NFAC for verification of the correct computation of application of funds. The Tribunal observed that the NFAC, despite taking cognizance of the remand order in the quantum proceedings, confirmed the penalty in 'blatant ignorance' of the provisions of Section 275(1A) of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that when the original assessment order is set aside in appeal, there is no subsisting assessment order until a fresh assessment is completed. Therefore, the penalty cannot be sustained independently. The Tribunal reversed the order of the NFAC and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-computation of the penalty as mandated by Section 275(1A).
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence in the form of gift deeds for the Rs. 2,60,000/- addition, considering its nature and relevance in the interest of substantial justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the Rs. 6,00,000/- loan was repaid and would furnish confirmations from lenders. Since the additional evidence required verification and examination by the FAA, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues, including the legal issue raised regarding the validity of reopening, to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication. The FAA was directed to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal held that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not maintained any books of accounts, justifying the AO's resort to estimation. However, it was emphasized that even in a best judgment assessment, the AO must not act vindictively or capriciously and the estimation must be based on rational grounds, such as the past history of the assessee or comparable cases, as held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Esufal H.M. Abdulali. The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided a basis for adopting 12% and 8% respectively, nor was it based on past history or comparable cases. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO with a direction to adopt the net profit based on the assessee's past history or comparables in the same line of business, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The issue of consequential tax demand and penalty proceedings under Section 270A was not expressly decided but would be subject to the revised assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's applications primarily based on his earlier order concerning the parent association, MADITISSIA, and given that the Tribunal had restored MADITISSIA's applications for de novo consideration, the assessee's claim for registration should also be considered afresh. The Tribunal directed the assessee to participate before the CIT(E) on the date of hearing without fail and submit all relevant documents. The CIT(E) was instructed to pass orders after hearing the assessee in accordance with the law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, implying a remand for fresh consideration by the lower authority. The specific finding on whether the activities were charitable was deferred pending the fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal. The Tribunal noted that during the hearing, the assessee was unable to substantiate the labor charges claimed with evidence of ESI, PF, or other statutory deductions applicable to labor. The assessee also failed to establish a clear nexus between the expenses claimed and statutory deductions. The Tribunal observed that the AO had taken a liberal view by disallowing only 20% of the expenses paid in cash. Based on the lack of substantiation from the assessee and the observations made, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. Consequently, all four appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal considered the sole issue of whether the CIT(Exemption) was justified in rejecting the grant of registration under Section 12AB. The CIT(Exemption) had denied registration primarily because the assessee was deemed a mutual benefit association, benefiting only its members and not the public at large, engaging in commercial activities, and failing to prove the voluntary nature of its receipts or application of funds for charitable purposes. The Tribunal noted that the assessee society was formed under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and that Section 12D of that Act empowers the society. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the registration or the Section 80G(5) application, nor does it provide the reasoning for its conclusion or the ratio decidendi. The operative directions are not recorded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 of the Act in respect of the loan from Shri J. Mohan by providing PAN, confirmation of balance, ledger extracts, bank statements, and the creditor's response to summons under Section 131, confirming the transactions. The transactions were routed through banking channels, and the immediate source in the creditor's hands was explained and uncontroverted. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted a larger addition on identical material for Shri J. Mohan, and the non-filing of returns by creditors is a circumstance for further inquiry, not conclusive proof of unexplained credit. The Tribunal found no material to demonstrate that the monies advanced emanated from the assessee. Therefore, the addition of Rs.5,64,77,072/- made by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), and the Revenue's grounds of appeal on this issue were dismissed. The judgment also discusses the addition of Rs.1,17,80,000/- in respect of Smt. Vimala Devi and Shri Pradeep Kumar Chordia, but the specific finding on this issue is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, though it was confirmed by the CIT(A) and the assessee appealed against it. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked jurisdiction to make additions on an issue different from the one that formed the basis for initiating the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal relied on the binding decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. vs ACIT, which, after considering Explanation 3 to Section 147, held that while Explanation 3 lifts the embargo on making assessments on grounds other than those for which notice was issued, it does not override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions in the substantive part of Section 147. The Court stated that the AO has to assess or reassess the income which escaped assessment and was the basis for the belief, and if he does so, he can also assess other escaped income. However, if the AO accepts the assessee's contention that the initially believed escaped income did not escape assessment, he cannot independently assess some other income without issuing a fresh notice. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to show that the AO made additions on the issues for which he reopened the assessment. Therefore, the reassessment order was held to be passed without jurisdiction and non-est in the eyes of law. The addition on merits was considered academic and not adjudicated. Other legal grounds were left open.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid. The AO issued the notice under Section 148A(b) on 18.03.2022, requiring a response by 24.03.2022, which provided only five clear days. Section 148A(b) mandates providing not less than seven clear days to the assessee for responding. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Nagercoil, clarified that 'not less than seven days' implies seven clear days, excluding both the date of issue and the last date of submission. The omission by the AO to grant the mandatory seven clear days vitiated the action of reopening the assessment. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 dated 30.03.2022 was rendered invalid, and the assessment completed on 15.03.2023 based on this invalid notice was held to be non-est in the eyes of law and a nullity. The Tribunal did not decide any other issues.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) ought to have called for an explanation from the assessee if any omission or deficiency was found, before drawing an adverse view. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had enjoyed 12A registration from 2019 onwards. The passing of a cryptic order without confronting the assessee and asking for explanations regarding the income and expenditure account for the year ending 31.03.2025 constituted a per-se violation of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the Section 12AB registration was set aside, and the application was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) with a direction to comply with the principles of natural justice and grant a proper opportunity to the assessee. Regarding the denial of approval under Section 80G, since it was consequential to the denial of Section 12AB registration, that application was also restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration after the decision on the Section 12AB application. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal. The Tribunal noted that during the hearing, the assessee was unable to substantiate the labor charges claimed with evidence of ESI, PF, or other statutory deductions applicable to labor. The assessee also failed to establish a clear nexus between the expenses claimed and statutory deductions. The Tribunal observed that the AO had taken a liberal view by disallowing only 20% of the expenses paid in cash. Based on the lack of substantiation from the assessee and the observations made, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. Consequently, all four appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 of the Act in respect of the loan from Shri J. Mohan by providing PAN, confirmation of balance, ledger extracts, bank statements, and the creditor's response to summons under Section 131, confirming the transactions. The transactions were routed through banking channels, and the immediate source in the creditor's hands was explained and uncontroverted. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted a larger addition on identical material for Shri J. Mohan, and the non-filing of returns by creditors is a circumstance for further inquiry, not conclusive proof of unexplained credit. The Tribunal found no material to demonstrate that the monies advanced emanated from the assessee. Therefore, the addition of Rs.5,64,77,072/- made by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), and the Revenue's grounds of appeal on this issue were dismissed. The judgment also discusses the addition of Rs.1,17,80,000/- in respect of Smt. Vimala Devi and Shri Pradeep Kumar Chordia, but the specific finding on this issue is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, though it was confirmed by the CIT(A) and the assessee appealed against it. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's applications primarily based on his earlier order concerning the parent association, MADITISSIA, and given that the Tribunal had restored MADITISSIA's applications for de novo consideration, the assessee's claim for registration should also be considered afresh. The Tribunal directed the assessee to participate before the CIT(E) on the date of hearing without fail and submit all relevant documents. The CIT(E) was instructed to pass orders after hearing the assessee in accordance with the law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, implying a remand for fresh consideration by the lower authority. The specific finding on whether the activities were charitable was deferred pending the fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The core issue was the deletion of an addition made on account of a sales discrepancy between a manual register and Tally software. The Tribunal noted that during search operations, the assessee had initially agreed to offer the difference of Rs. 4,42,95,135/- as income. However, the CIT(A), after calling for a remand report from the AO, accepted the assessee's reconciliation statement. The Tribunal specifically perused the remand report dated 21.07.2025, wherein the AO had not pointed out any defect in the assessee's reconciliation. The AO confirmed that the sales recorded in the manual register, after deducting cancelled invoices and discounts, amounted to Rs. 22,87,02,244/-, while total sales including GST as per Tally was Rs. 23,86,28,584/-, which was higher than the manual register sales. Since the CIT(A)'s order was based on this remand report, and the Revenue could not point out deficiencies in it, the Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the technical know-how fees received by the assessee from its AE were inextricably linked with the purchase of poultry feed premix. The Tribunal found that the technical know-how was provided to facilitate the purchase of premix and that the AE could not commercially exploit the know-how independently. The Tribunal also noted that the provision of technical know-how was revenue neutral as any higher charge would be compensated by a higher purchase price of the premix. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,61,54,610/- related to the receipt of technical know-how fees, allowing Ground of Appeal No. 2. Regarding the disallowance of the provision for performance incentives of Rs. 76,50,000/-, the Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer invoked section 40A(2)(b) without recording a finding that the expenditure was excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of services, the legitimate needs of the business, or the benefits derived by the assessee. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must establish excessiveness or unreasonableness before invoking the provision. As no such finding was made by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 76,50,000/-, allowing Ground of Appeal No. 3.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the captioned appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the appeal was a duplicate filing, with a prior appeal against the same order already being on record. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR did not oppose the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No other issues were decided, and no specific provisions of the Income Tax Act were discussed in relation to the merits of the case, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal. The Tribunal noted that during the hearing, the assessee was unable to substantiate the labor charges claimed with evidence of ESI, PF, or other statutory deductions applicable to labor. The assessee also failed to establish a clear nexus between the expenses claimed and statutory deductions. The Tribunal observed that the AO had taken a liberal view by disallowing only 20% of the expenses paid in cash. Based on the lack of substantiation from the assessee and the observations made, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. Consequently, all four appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Act. The primary reason for denial was the CIT(E)'s finding that the assessee is a mutual benefit association and benefits its members rather than the public at large. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was formed under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. While the judgment mentions Section 12D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as empowering the society, it does not elaborate on the specific findings or reasoning regarding the mutual benefit aspect or the public benefit test in relation to the assessee's objects and activities. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the appeal itself, only that the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the registration. The operative directions are not detailed, and the specific relief granted or denied is not fully elaborated in the provided text.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds of appeal. The Tribunal noted that during the hearing, the assessee was unable to substantiate the labor charges claimed with evidence of ESI, PF, or other statutory deductions applicable to labor. The assessee also failed to establish a clear nexus between the expenses claimed and statutory deductions. The Tribunal observed that the AO had taken a liberal view by disallowing only 20% of the expenses paid in cash. Based on the lack of substantiation from the assessee and the observations made, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. Consequently, all four appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Act. The primary reason for denial was the CIT(E)'s finding that the assessee is a mutual benefit association and benefits its members rather than the public at large. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was formed under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. While the judgment mentions Section 12D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as empowering the society, it does not elaborate on the specific findings or reasoning regarding the mutual benefit aspect or the public benefit test in relation to the assessee's objects and activities. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the appeal itself, only that the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the registration. The operative directions are not detailed, and the specific relief granted or denied is not fully elaborated in the provided text.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards alleged unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of flats were unsustainable. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting these additions. The Tribunal found that the additions were based on an estimation methodology comparing recorded sale consideration with assumed median selling rates, treating the differential as unaccounted cash receipts after a 5% discount. However, the AO did not provide independent or corroborative evidence to establish actual receipt of cash over and above the recorded amounts. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, nor did he demonstrate that the consideration recorded in sale deeds, agreements, or ERP records was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the alleged undisclosed income was quantified by substituting recorded consideration with estimated rates without proving actual accrual or receipt. The Tribunal also found that the seized material, electronic communications, employee statements, and ERP records, along with the median-rate methodology and extrapolation adopted by the AO, lacked evidentiary value. The decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's group company case for AY 2023-24, which was followed in the lead appeal, governed the substantive controversy. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any distinguishing factual feature or independent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had erred in rejecting the applications for renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee's activities, which included imparting practical, skill-based training (e.g., tailoring, beautician, palm leaf making) to rural youth and women, assisting them in forming SHGs, and facilitating bank finance for productive ventures, were genuine and squarely fell within the realm of 'relief for poor' as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not charge beneficiaries any fees and received financial aid from banks and institutions for organizing training programs. The allegation of engaging in microfinance activities was found to be unsubstantiated by the records, as the assessee did not carry on its own lending activity, earn interest income from such activity, or maintain a loan portfolio. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(E)'s observation that expenses were not directed towards charitable activities was factually incorrect. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant the registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards alleged unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of flats were unsustainable. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting these additions. The Tribunal found that the additions were based on an estimation methodology comparing recorded sale consideration with assumed median selling rates, treating the differential as unaccounted cash receipts after a 5% discount. However, the AO did not provide independent or corroborative evidence to establish actual receipt of cash over and above the recorded amounts. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, nor did he demonstrate that the consideration recorded in sale deeds, agreements, or ERP records was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the alleged undisclosed income was quantified by substituting recorded consideration with estimated rates without proving actual accrual or receipt. The Tribunal also found that the seized material, electronic communications, employee statements, and ERP records, along with the median-rate methodology and extrapolation adopted by the AO, lacked evidentiary value. The decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's group company case for AY 2023-24, which was followed in the lead appeal, governed the substantive controversy. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any distinguishing factual feature or independent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.40,50,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, an individual engaged in the business of purchase and sale of waste cotton under the name Ramathilagam Cotton Traders, had offered Rs.40,50,000/- under the head 'Other Income' in its statement of total income and Profit and Loss Account. These financial statements were available before both the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if the addition were accepted, the same amount would be taxed twice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee. The operative direction was to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards alleged unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of flats were unsustainable. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting these additions. The Tribunal found that the additions were based on an estimation methodology comparing recorded sale consideration with assumed median selling rates, treating the differential as unaccounted cash receipts after a 5% discount. However, the AO did not provide independent or corroborative evidence to establish actual receipt of cash over and above the recorded amounts. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, nor did he demonstrate that the consideration recorded in sale deeds, agreements, or ERP records was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the alleged undisclosed income was quantified by substituting recorded consideration with estimated rates without proving actual accrual or receipt. The Tribunal also found that the seized material, electronic communications, employee statements, and ERP records, along with the median-rate methodology and extrapolation adopted by the AO, lacked evidentiary value. The decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's group company case for AY 2023-24, which was followed in the lead appeal, governed the substantive controversy. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any distinguishing factual feature or independent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and, in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to determine the fair market value of the asset, specifically taking into account the cost of acquisition with indexation as on 01.04.2000. The assessee is granted liberty to submit any supporting evidence. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals, finding sufficient cause for the delay and that it was not attributable to gross negligence or lack of bona fides, thereby advancing the cause of substantial justice. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had found no direct or independent corroborative evidence for alleged unaccounted cash receipts. The CIT(A) observed the absence of buyer-wise cash receipts, acknowledgements, parallel books, or examination of purchasers. The retracted employee statements and the AO's methodology of using a median selling rate without establishing a direct nexus to individual transactions were also found to be unsustainable. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the very foundation of the additions had been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Ivar Estates Private Limited (supra). Following the principle of judicial discipline and the decision of the Coordinate Bench, which dealt with identical issues arising from the same search and material, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The additions for assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 were deleted, and the orders of the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards alleged unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of flats were unsustainable. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting these additions. The Tribunal found that the additions were based on an estimation methodology comparing recorded sale consideration with assumed median selling rates, treating the differential as unaccounted cash receipts after a 5% discount. However, the AO did not provide independent or corroborative evidence to establish actual receipt of cash over and above the recorded amounts. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, nor did he demonstrate that the consideration recorded in sale deeds, agreements, or ERP records was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the alleged undisclosed income was quantified by substituting recorded consideration with estimated rates without proving actual accrual or receipt. The Tribunal also found that the seized material, electronic communications, employee statements, and ERP records, along with the median-rate methodology and extrapolation adopted by the AO, lacked evidentiary value. The decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's group company case for AY 2023-24, which was followed in the lead appeal, governed the substantive controversy. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any distinguishing factual feature or independent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals, finding sufficient cause for the delay and that it was not attributable to gross negligence or lack of bona fides, thereby advancing the cause of substantial justice. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had found no direct or independent corroborative evidence for alleged unaccounted cash receipts. The CIT(A) observed the absence of buyer-wise cash receipts, acknowledgements, parallel books, or examination of purchasers. The retracted employee statements and the AO's methodology of using a median selling rate without establishing a direct nexus to individual transactions were also found to be unsustainable. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the very foundation of the additions had been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Ivar Estates Private Limited (supra). Following the principle of judicial discipline and the decision of the Coordinate Bench, which dealt with identical issues arising from the same search and material, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The additions for assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 were deleted, and the orders of the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and is assessable as an AOP. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the tax computed under Section 167B by applying a flat rate of 30%. Citing the order in KMR Educational Society v. ACIT (supra), the Tribunal reiterated its view that Section 167B has no application to societies registered under the Societies Act or similar laws. Therefore, the application of Section 167B in the present case was held to be not applicable. The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the tax at rates applicable to an individual or HUF, allowing the basic exemption limit and thereafter applying the applicable slab rates. The disallowance/adjustment made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was deemed unjustified. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that considering the submissions of the assessee's authorized representative and the additional evidence filed, it was proper to remand the matter to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to consider the additional evidence and pass an order in accordance with the law. The assessee was granted liberty to file further evidence in support of the claim. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the depreciation claim itself but rather on the procedural aspect of allowing the AO to re-examine the matter with the additional evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals, finding sufficient cause for the delay and that it was not attributable to gross negligence or lack of bona fides, thereby advancing the cause of substantial justice. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had found no direct or independent corroborative evidence for alleged unaccounted cash receipts. The CIT(A) observed the absence of buyer-wise cash receipts, acknowledgements, parallel books, or examination of purchasers. The retracted employee statements and the AO's methodology of using a median selling rate without establishing a direct nexus to individual transactions were also found to be unsustainable. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the very foundation of the additions had been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Ivar Estates Private Limited (supra). Following the principle of judicial discipline and the decision of the Coordinate Bench, which dealt with identical issues arising from the same search and material, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The additions for assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 were deleted, and the orders of the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,44,779/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. Regarding the amount of Rs. 4,29,000/- claimed for expenditure with contractor Mr. Loganathan, the Tribunal noted that the contractor's confirmation was on record, and neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had examined the contractor or brought any adverse material on record to doubt the confirmation. The Tribunal found no steps taken by the authorities below to examine the contractor. Therefore, the addition in respect of Rs. 4,29,000/- was deemed unjustified. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence brought on record against the assessee for not incurring the amount of Rs. 11,44,779/-. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals, finding sufficient cause for the delay and that it was not attributable to gross negligence or lack of bona fides, thereby advancing the cause of substantial justice. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had found no direct or independent corroborative evidence for alleged unaccounted cash receipts. The CIT(A) observed the absence of buyer-wise cash receipts, acknowledgements, parallel books, or examination of purchasers. The retracted employee statements and the AO's methodology of using a median selling rate without establishing a direct nexus to individual transactions were also found to be unsustainable. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the very foundation of the additions had been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Ivar Estates Private Limited (supra). Following the principle of judicial discipline and the decision of the Coordinate Bench, which dealt with identical issues arising from the same search and material, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The additions for assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 were deleted, and the orders of the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had erred in rejecting the applications for renewal of registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee's activities, which included imparting practical, skill-based training (e.g., tailoring, beautician, palm leaf making) to rural youth and women, assisting them in forming SHGs, and facilitating bank finance for productive ventures, were genuine and squarely fell within the realm of 'relief for poor' as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not charge beneficiaries any fees and received financial aid from banks and institutions for organizing training programs. The allegation of engaging in microfinance activities was found to be unsubstantiated by the records, as the assessee did not carry on its own lending activity, earn interest income from such activity, or maintain a loan portfolio. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(E)'s observation that expenses were not directed towards charitable activities was factually incorrect. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant the registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's petition to admit additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. This evidence included Form No. 26A (Certificate from Accountant under the first proviso to section 201(1)) and the Income Tax Return of the seller for AY 2018-19. The Tribunal noted that while technically the assessee was at fault, the first proviso to section 201(1) allows for non-default status if the payee has furnished their return, accounted for the sum, and paid the tax due, supported by an accountant's certificate. The Tribunal found this evidence essential for a fair decision. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for reconsideration in light of the admitted Form No. 26A. The assessee was directed to produce the Form No. 26A and relevant documents before the AO without fail. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order passed under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was indeed barred by limitation. The notice under Section 274 read with Section 271D was issued on 04.01.2021. As per Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty order should have been passed within six months from the end of the month in which the notice was issued. Therefore, the due date for passing the penalty order was 31.07.2021. However, the penalty order was passed on 28.03.2022, which is significantly beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal, relying on the decision in Kodiambaid Subrahmanya Rai (supra), found the penalty order to be invalid in law and quashed it. Consequently, the additional grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside. The other grounds raised in Form 36 became academic.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards alleged unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of flats were unsustainable. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting these additions. The Tribunal found that the additions were based on an estimation methodology comparing recorded sale consideration with assumed median selling rates, treating the differential as unaccounted cash receipts after a 5% discount. However, the AO did not provide independent or corroborative evidence to establish actual receipt of cash over and above the recorded amounts. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, nor did he demonstrate that the consideration recorded in sale deeds, agreements, or ERP records was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the alleged undisclosed income was quantified by substituting recorded consideration with estimated rates without proving actual accrual or receipt. The Tribunal also found that the seized material, electronic communications, employee statements, and ERP records, along with the median-rate methodology and extrapolation adopted by the AO, lacked evidentiary value. The decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's group company case for AY 2023-24, which was followed in the lead appeal, governed the substantive controversy. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any distinguishing factual feature or independent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the addition under Section 69C, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish the fundamental requirement of actual incurrence of expenditure by the assessee. The loose sheet and the third-party statement were insufficient to establish the nexus between the assessee and the alleged expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the document was recovered from Shri M. Gopal, not the assessee, and the statutory presumption under Sections 132(4A) and 292C could not be expanded to prove unexplained expenditure by another person without establishing the necessary nexus. The Tribunal also rejected the reliance on the B. Kishore Kumar case, as it involved a third-party allegation categorically denied by the assessee, and the allegation was not independently corroborated. The Tribunal further held that the alternative invocation of Section 69A was unsustainable as the assessee was never found to be the owner of the alleged money, nor was any such money found or seized from the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the evidentiary value of the material, the limited operation of statutory presumptions, the effect of the contemporaneous denial by the assessee, the absence of corroborative evidence, and the AO's failure to establish the foundational requirements of Section 69C. The Revenue failed to provide any material warranting interference with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards alleged unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of flats were unsustainable. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting these additions. The Tribunal found that the additions were based on an estimation methodology comparing recorded sale consideration with assumed median selling rates, treating the differential as unaccounted cash receipts after a 5% discount. However, the AO did not provide independent or corroborative evidence to establish actual receipt of cash over and above the recorded amounts. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, nor did he demonstrate that the consideration recorded in sale deeds, agreements, or ERP records was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the alleged undisclosed income was quantified by substituting recorded consideration with estimated rates without proving actual accrual or receipt. The Tribunal also found that the seized material, electronic communications, employee statements, and ERP records, along with the median-rate methodology and extrapolation adopted by the AO, lacked evidentiary value. The decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's group company case for AY 2023-24, which was followed in the lead appeal, governed the substantive controversy. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any distinguishing factual feature or independent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals, finding sufficient cause for the delay and that it was not attributable to gross negligence or lack of bona fides, thereby advancing the cause of substantial justice. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had found no direct or independent corroborative evidence for alleged unaccounted cash receipts. The CIT(A) observed the absence of buyer-wise cash receipts, acknowledgements, parallel books, or examination of purchasers. The retracted employee statements and the AO's methodology of using a median selling rate without establishing a direct nexus to individual transactions were also found to be unsustainable. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the very foundation of the additions had been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Ivar Estates Private Limited (supra). Following the principle of judicial discipline and the decision of the Coordinate Bench, which dealt with identical issues arising from the same search and material, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The additions for assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 were deleted, and the orders of the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.12,20,000/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not maintainable. The Tribunal noted that neither the assessment order nor the CIT(A)'s order contained the date of the search. It was admitted that the transactions related to 2008. The AO issued notice under Section 148 based on seized material from a third party (M/s Omaxe Group) without bringing on record any evidence that the assessee actually made the alleged cash payments for the two immovable property transactions. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that when no expenditure was claimed, an addition under Section 69C is not justified. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards alleged unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of flats were unsustainable. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting these additions. The Tribunal found that the additions were based on an estimation methodology comparing recorded sale consideration with assumed median selling rates, treating the differential as unaccounted cash receipts after a 5% discount. However, the AO did not provide independent or corroborative evidence to establish actual receipt of cash over and above the recorded amounts. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, nor did he demonstrate that the consideration recorded in sale deeds, agreements, or ERP records was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the alleged undisclosed income was quantified by substituting recorded consideration with estimated rates without proving actual accrual or receipt. The Tribunal also found that the seized material, electronic communications, employee statements, and ERP records, along with the median-rate methodology and extrapolation adopted by the AO, lacked evidentiary value. The decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's group company case for AY 2023-24, which was followed in the lead appeal, governed the substantive controversy. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any distinguishing factual feature or independent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards alleged unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of flats were unsustainable. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting these additions. The Tribunal found that the additions were based on an estimation methodology comparing recorded sale consideration with assumed median selling rates, treating the differential as unaccounted cash receipts after a 5% discount. However, the AO did not provide independent or corroborative evidence to establish actual receipt of cash over and above the recorded amounts. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, nor did he demonstrate that the consideration recorded in sale deeds, agreements, or ERP records was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the alleged undisclosed income was quantified by substituting recorded consideration with estimated rates without proving actual accrual or receipt. The Tribunal also found that the seized material, electronic communications, employee statements, and ERP records, along with the median-rate methodology and extrapolation adopted by the AO, lacked evidentiary value. The decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's group company case for AY 2023-24, which was followed in the lead appeal, governed the substantive controversy. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any distinguishing factual feature or independent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the disallowance of depreciation on the distributor network. The Tribunal found that the AO rightly disallowed depreciation on the distributor network because there was no such intangible asset recorded in the financials of M/s. BASF India Ltd. as of March 31, 2018, under fixed assets or intangible assets. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide primary documentary evidence based on which the valuation report was prepared, and the valuation report itself lacked the signature of the Chartered Accountant and a valid registration number from the ICAI. Therefore, the acquired intangible assets could not be held as valid. The Tribunal concluded that the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the AO's denial of depreciation on the distributor network was justified. The issue of depreciation on goodwill was not expressly decided by the Tribunal in this appeal, as the CIT(A) had already allowed it based on previous ITAT orders.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards alleged unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of flats were unsustainable. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting these additions. The Tribunal found that the additions were based on an estimation methodology comparing recorded sale consideration with assumed median selling rates, treating the differential as unaccounted cash receipts after a 5% discount. However, the AO did not provide independent or corroborative evidence to establish actual receipt of cash over and above the recorded amounts. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of account, nor did he demonstrate that the consideration recorded in sale deeds, agreements, or ERP records was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the alleged undisclosed income was quantified by substituting recorded consideration with estimated rates without proving actual accrual or receipt. The Tribunal also found that the seized material, electronic communications, employee statements, and ERP records, along with the median-rate methodology and extrapolation adopted by the AO, lacked evidentiary value. The decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's group company case for AY 2023-24, which was followed in the lead appeal, governed the substantive controversy. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any distinguishing factual feature or independent evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.