Loading ITAT cases…
406 orders · Page 8 of 9
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted details regarding travel expenses. The assessee's representative fairly agreed to a disallowance of 5% on the disputed amount. The Tribunal agreed with this submission.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed by the AO beyond the due date prescribed under Section 144C(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the order is barred by limitation and is treated as void.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries during the assessment proceedings, and the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The assessment orders were found to be neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that no bills or vouchers were produced by the assessee. The CIT(A) had estimated profit at 8% based on Section 44AD without applying the section. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, directed the revenue authorities to estimate profit at 5%. Regarding the disallowance under Section 43B for PF & ESI payable and TDS, the Tribunal found that the PF & ESI amount did not relate to the relevant year, and TDS is not an expense but a tax, directing its deletion.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in disallowing the interest on home loan for the pre-construction period as part of the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal also noted that the DRP failed to provide a reasoned order and directed the AO to re-compute the LTCG.
The Tribunal held that the interest under section 220(2) of the Act cannot be levied for alleged non-payment of FBT liability. The assessee had discharged its FBT liability for AY 2009-10 by June 2008, and the department had appropriated it towards income tax. Furthermore, there was no proper service of intimation or demand notice for the FBT liability.
The Tribunal, relying on various judicial precedents, held that the deduction under Section 54 should not be denied merely because the new property was not registered in the assessee's name, especially when the investment was made from the sale proceeds. The provisions of Section 54 are beneficial and should be interpreted liberally.
The Tribunal found that the LO's activities, as detailed in the judgment, were primarily preparatory and auxiliary. It concluded that the LO did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, the income attributed to the alleged PE was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the LO's activities, as detailed in the judgment, were primarily preparatory and auxiliary. It concluded that the LO did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, the income attributed to the alleged PE was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was an entry operator and directed the AO to charge commission at 0.15% on certain amounts. The additions related to commission income on credit entries were confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in disbelieving the cash sales simply because they were higher than the previous year, especially when the assessee's books of accounts were not found to be defective. The addition made under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted all the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Regarding the addition for undisclosed profit from purchase activities and undisclosed investment (Ground No. 1), the Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s observation that it was not possible for the assessee to keep the stock estimated by the AO in the shops of the sizes mentioned. The Tribunal found the stock figures disproportionate to the shop area and declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. Concerning consignment sales, the Tribunal observed that consignment purchases and sales were shown separately in the regular books and did not affect the GP working. Since consignment sales were against Form F, the question of undisclosed consignment sales did not arise, leading the Tribunal to decline interference with the CIT(A)'s order on this issue. For the addition of jewellery (Ground No. 2), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) allowed the benefit of telescoping and observed that jewellery is received from relatives and family members as per custom, which is taken into account by CBDT Instruction No. 1916. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order on this issue. Regarding the addition for the peak balance of an undisclosed bank account and profit on forward transactions (Grounds No. 3 & 4), the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the additions, finding the CIT(A)'s order rational and logical, especially since the firm to which the seized papers allegedly belonged was dissolved. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 on account of seized material.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68. The AO's suspicion about the source of funds was not supported by direct evidence, and previous similar additions related to penny stock sales had been deleted by the CIT(A) and sustained by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the jewelry found was studded with diamonds and not loose diamonds. It was also established that the declared jewelry in the Wealth Tax Return was higher than what was found during the search. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal found that the LO's activities, as detailed in the judgment, were primarily preparatory and auxiliary. It concluded that the LO did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, the income attributed to the alleged PE was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the LO's activities, as detailed in the judgment, were primarily preparatory and auxiliary. It concluded that the LO did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, the income attributed to the alleged PE was deleted.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income claimed. Since the exempt income was Rs. 66,810/- and the disallowance was significantly higher, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and deemed to have never been issued due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in its body, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. This decision was based on precedents from the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee's application under Section 154 was barred by limitation. It was also observed that on the date of processing the return, there was no mistake apparent from the record that could be rectified under Section 154. The decisions relied upon by the assessee were distinguished on facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of unabsorbed depreciation was indeed a mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under Section 154. The Assessing Officer was required to verify the claim from his own assessment records. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to examine the claim afresh.
The Tribunal found that while the AO mentioned issuing notices under section 142(1), there was no evidence of actual service at the correct address. To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for unexplained investment, noting that the assessee had sufficiently proven the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of lenders, and the loan was repaid via banking channels. It also affirmed the deletion of estimated interest as the assessee had declared accrual interest and the AO failed to provide contrary evidence. The deletion of Rs. 2,05,727/- for credit card expenditure was upheld as explained, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s admission of additional evidence. Ground 5 was deemed general and not requiring adjudication.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the cash deposits were duly recorded in the assessee's books of account, which were maintained in the ordinary course of business, audited under various laws, and supported by documentary evidence like invoices and VAT returns. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), noting no defect or infirmity in the assessee's books and upholding the sales as accepted by VAT authorities.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable as the assessee provided explanations and evidence showing that the transactions were accounted for in the books of JBL or reflected in bank statements. The Tribunal found that the amounts were either accounted for or already considered in the hands of JBL.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable as the assessee provided explanations and evidence showing that the transactions were accounted for in the books of JBL or reflected in bank statements. The Tribunal found that the amounts were either accounted for or already considered in the hands of JBL.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating the grounds on merit, as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The dismissal of the appeal solely on grounds of non-prosecution was not justified.
The CIT(A) had considered the financials, cash balance, and audit reports and concluded that the cash deposited was explained by the available balance built up through undisputed cash withdrawals from bank accounts.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio due to the non-mention of DIN, as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was issued manually without DIN and without obtaining the required approval for manual issuance.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, not containing the mandatory DIN as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, is invalid and deemed to have never been issued. This decision followed a coordinate bench's order and a jurisdictional High Court ruling.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided details of advances, offer letters, ledger accounts, and ID proofs. The AO's decision to add the amounts was based on suspicion, conjecture, and surmises without sufficient evidence to demolish the affirmations made in the buyers' affidavits and the refund details provided. The CIT(A) had properly appreciated the facts.
The Tribunal noted that the DIT(E)'s order under Section 263 had become final as no appeal was filed against it. However, considering the peculiar circumstances and the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh, considering the assessee's claim in light of sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the additions in the quantum proceedings, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not present any evidence to rebut the findings of the lower authorities regarding additions made under Section 68 for share capital and share premium, nor for income earned from accommodation entries. The grounds related to Section 68 were dismissed, and the addition for accommodation entries was affirmed.
The Tribunal observed that the first appellate authority's order was non-speaking and lacked reasoning on the merits of the additions, despite the significant quantum of additions. Failure of the assessee to appear does not justify a summary decision without proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the premise of issuing notice under Section 148, which was that no return was filed by the assessee, was factually incorrect as evidenced by an acknowledgement copy of the return filed manually. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was vitiated. The Tribunal also noted that the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) made the reassessment order bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the absence of DIN in the assessment order and notice of demand, without any exceptional circumstances or reasons for non-mention, renders these documents invalid. Citing various High Court and coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal concluded that a separate intimation of DIN after issuance of the order is not permissible and subsequent communication is superfluous.
The Tribunal held that the absence of DIN in the approval under Section 153D renders the approval non-est in the eyes of law, making the consequent assessment order under Section 153A a nullity. The Tribunal relied on the decision in Finesse International Design Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT and other similar judgments.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had misinterpreted the agreements between the assessee and its distributors/end users. It found that the case was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the source of cash deposits was corroborated by corresponding withdrawals and there was no justifiable reason to entertain suspicion. The penalty imposed under Section 271AAC(1) was also deleted as the quantum addition was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the source of cash deposits was corroborated by corresponding withdrawals and there was no justifiable reason to entertain suspicion. The penalty imposed under Section 271AAC(1) was also deleted as the quantum addition was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and non-est in law because it was passed without quoting the mandatory DIN as required by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. This decision was based on the findings of a coordinate bench and upheld by the jurisdictional High Court.
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions. It was held that no deduction under Section 35AC was claimed by the assessee, and the outstanding balances were business transactions, not loans, making imputed interest invalid. Additionally, Section 14A was found inapplicable as the assessee claimed no exempt income, with the 2022 amendment being prospective, and the interest income discrepancy was resolved by verifying ledger accounts.
The Tribunal considered multiple valuation reports, including those from the assessee, SVA, Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO), and a registered valuer. It noted significant discrepancies between the SVA value and other valuations, particularly the DVO and registered valuer. The Tribunal concluded that the deeming provisions of Section 50C could not be pressed into action given the difference in FMV and the registered valuer's report.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee deals in gold and diamond ornaments and provided stock summaries and VAT returns, which were not revised. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient stock for sale and had successfully explained the source of the deposited cash.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed holding a civil post under a State as an employee of the Haryana Agricultural University. Therefore, the provisions of Section 10(10)(i) were attracted, entitling the assessee to full exemption for the gratuity amount received. The addition made by the AO was thus considered incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear for hearings and did not present any material to demonstrate its charitable activities. The CIT's finding that only a small amount was spent on charity (less than 5% of total expenses) and that the majority of expenses were for maintaining the temple was considered. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT's order, stating that the conditions for exemption under Section 80G(5B) were not met.
The Tribunal held that the assessment made for AY 2012-13 under Section 144 r.w.s. 142(1) was void ab initio. This was because the proper procedure under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not invoked or initiated, which is mandatory when assessing a person other than the searched person after a search, based on a satisfaction note.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus cast upon him under Section 68 of the Act by proving the identity and capacity of the lender, and that the transaction was conducted through banking channels via account payee cheques. The AO had not questioned the identity of the lender, and the financial statements of the lender corroborated the transaction.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) simply believed the assessee's submissions without verifying the facts or conducting independent inquiries. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) with a direction to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the 15 parties and decide the matter afresh after affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2012-13, made under section 144 r.w.s. 142(1) consequent to a satisfaction note recorded much later, ought to have been made under section 153C. Since section 153C was not invoked, the assessment was treated as void ab initio.