Loading ITAT cases…
534 orders · Page 9 of 11
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on suspicion and conjecture, without sufficient evidence. The sale consideration reported in the registered sale deed was also higher than the circle rate, and the AO failed to conduct further inquiries with the purchasers.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on suspicion and conjecture, without sufficient evidence. The sale consideration reported in the registered sale deed was also higher than the circle rate, and the AO failed to conduct further inquiries with the purchasers.
The Tribunal held that the manner of depositing cash into the assessee's account before transferring to the bank was an irrelevant consideration as the funds ultimately reached the bank and there was no dispute from the bank. The assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,51,062/- (Issue 1), the Tribunal found that the seized Day book itself supported the assessee's claim. It showed a total cash of Rs. 2,84,928/-, with Rs. 1,19,126/- given to staff for petty expenses, leaving physical cash of Rs. 1,53,866/-. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not doubted other entries in the Day book, implying it was part of regular accounts. The Tribunal also acknowledged the prior deletion of this addition by the CIT(A) which was not challenged by the revenue. Thus, the addition was deleted. 2. Regarding the additions of Rs. 10,54,765/- and Rs. 6,25,800/- under Section 69C (Issue 2), the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction. It relied on the amendment to Section 69C effective from 01.04.1999 and the interpretation by CBDT Circular No. 772, as well as the decision in P. Ram Gopal Varma (Andhra Pradesh HC). The grounds raised by the assessee on this count were allowed. 3. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1.25 crores for FDRs (Issue 3), the Tribunal held that the sources of the FDRs were duly explained as they were obtained from the assessee's regular bank account, with dates and amounts specified. The bank statements showed the balances as the source, and the amounts were in the audited balance sheet, which was not questioned. The Tribunal agreed that Section 69C was not applicable as the source of expenditure was available in the books. The addition was directed to be deleted. 4. Regarding surcharge (Issue 4), the Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground. It noted the concession by the DR and relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (Supra), which held that the proviso to Section 113, inserted by the Finance Act, 2002, operates prospectively from 01.06.2002. As the search occurred on 08.05.1997, prior to this date, no surcharge was leviable. Ground No. 11 was general and needed no adjudication. The operative direction was to delete the additions related to issues 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without deciding on the merits of the case. In the interest of justice and fairplay, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee a fresh opportunity to make effective representations and furnish evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to a low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the AO's rejection of books u/s 145(3) and the addition. It clarified that income from excess stock found during a survey should be treated as unexplained investment u/s 69, not business income, and thus correctly excluded from GP calculation.
The Tribunal held that the manner of depositing cash into the assessee's account before transferring to the bank was an irrelevant consideration as the funds ultimately reached the bank and there was no dispute from the bank. The assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal restored grounds 1 and 2 concerning TDS non-deduction and audit report discrepancy to the CIT(A) for verification of the assessee's suo motu disallowance and fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also allowed grounds 3 and 4 relating to expenses without payee details (u/s 69) and share premium from non-residents (u/s 56(2)(viib)) to be remanded to the CIT(A), as the CIT(A) had failed to consider the assessee's arguments on these points, directing a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal due to a low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal upheld the AO's rejection of books u/s 145(3) and the addition. It clarified that income from excess stock found during a survey should be treated as unexplained investment u/s 69, not business income, and thus correctly excluded from GP calculation.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings. It noted that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to justify the transactions, particularly regarding Krish Builders, where funds were returned quickly and repayments were not always to the original party. The Tribunal found that the non-corroboration of the land aggregator claim justified the CIT(A)'s conclusion, especially given the assessee's claim of not maintaining regular books of account under section 44AD.
The Tribunal held that once the nature of the assessee's business as deriving income from commission was accepted by the CIT(A), there was no basis to dispute the profit declaration under Section 44AD by questioning the quantum of receipts and expenditures. Doing so would defeat the very purpose of Section 44AD. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions, which were the basis for the penalty proceedings, had been deleted by previous orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case. Since the basis for the penalty no longer existed, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the levied penalty.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to utilize opportunities provided by the lower authorities but, in the interest of justice, decided to grant one more opportunity for being heard. The case is remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with the assessee required to cooperate with the Assessing Officer's proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable because the tax liability under Section 115JB was higher than under normal provisions, even with the alleged escapement. The conditions for reassessment beyond four years were not met, particularly regarding the disclosure of facts related to provisions for repairs.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that the issues involved in the appeals had been resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeals and dismissed them as 'withdrawn'.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that the issues involved in the appeals had been resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeals and dismissed them as 'withdrawn'.
The Tribunal held that an error in an earlier assessment year cannot be rectified by reducing the current year's income, thus sustaining the addition of dividend income. However, regarding the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision, directing the AO to apply 0.5% of the average value of investments.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing evidence during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to utilize the opportunities provided by the AO and CIT(A). However, considering the interest of justice and the nature of additions, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo verification and assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the profits earned by the assessee were part of a scheme for accommodation entries and bogus LTCG. Evidence produced by the assessee, such as contract notes, was not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transactions.
The tribunal, while acknowledging the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. that delayed deposits of EPF and ESIC are not allowable, considered the assessee's alternative argument regarding the definition of 'due date' under EPF Scheme, 1952. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the 'due date' as prescribed by the EPF Scheme, 1952, and re-examine the allowability of the contributions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the interest expenditure disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), acknowledging the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, but confirmed the sustenance of administrative expenses disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). For the domain name registration payments, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that these payments were neither royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) nor Fee for Technical Services under Article 12(3) of the India-US DTAA, thereby confirming the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to implement the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to provide a reasoned order on how the receipts constituted equipment royalty. Consequently, the final assessment order was deemed to be without jurisdiction and void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable because the tax liability under Section 115JB was higher than under normal provisions, even with the alleged escapement. The conditions for reassessment beyond four years were not met, particularly regarding the disclosure of facts related to provisions for repairs.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment and CIT(A) orders, remanding the matter to the A.O. for a fresh assessment with proper hearing. The penalty order was deleted, but the A.O. retained liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if warranted by the revised assessment.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a dead person, especially when the authorities had knowledge of the demise, is a nullity in the eyes of law. Therefore, the impugned assessment order was declared void. The Department was granted liberty to seek recall of this order if the claims of informing the authorities about the death are proven contrary.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment and CIT(A) orders, remanding the matter to the A.O. for a fresh assessment with proper hearing. The penalty order was deleted, but the A.O. retained liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if warranted by the revised assessment.
The tribunal found that the orders of the lower authorities were passed ex-parte and the grounds of appeal were not properly adjudicated. Therefore, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, directing the Assessing Officer to provide a fresh opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a fresh assessment order, with the assessee cooperating in the proceedings.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order to be contradictory to Section 250(6) of the Act, as it failed to address the issues on merits. Noting the assessee's explanation regarding the source of investment (joint purchase with husband and bank loan) and her humble background, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh determination, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was indeed passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee and that the grounds of appeal were not properly adjudicated. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de-novo adjudication, with directions to provide a hearing opportunity to the assessee, who is also directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal, which were purely legal. It was held that since a search was initiated after the notice under Section 143(2) was issued, the regular assessment proceedings abated. Consequently, the assessment order passed was bad in law.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to conduct independent verification and denied the assessee adequate opportunity to explain the source of bank credits, violating natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found the case suitable for remitting back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment (de novo) after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal expressly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted additional evidence, including a party-wise reconciliation of receipts and TDS, which was crucial for the case but not previously presented to the AO. Due to the need for factual verification of this new evidence, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's appeal, holding that income from an undisclosed source (unexplained cash credit under Section 68) cannot be subsumed within estimated business income when books are rejected under Section 145(3), as these represent different sources. Such parallel additions do not amount to double taxation. Consequently, the issue of the deletion of the Section 68 addition was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, incorporating the Tribunal's observations and Supreme Court judgments cited by the Department.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to her authorized representative being out of Delhi and having requested an adjournment. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, the Tribunal held that penalty should not be imposed if the assessee's conduct is not contumacious. Finding the assessee's conduct not contumacious, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
The Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to the assessee's request for withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO had not disputed the sales figures, stock details, or GP ratio, and that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal acknowledged that lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-appearance, but found the assessee's claim of non-receipt of hearing notices to be a reasonable cause. To uphold natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to not seek adjournments and to furnish evidence for the investment.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance despite repeated notices. It found that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the LTCG claim, as details of persons to whom shares were sold were not identifiable (Section 133(6)), and the investment in the penny stock lacked prudence, indicating a bogus LTCG. The Tribunal emphasized that mere computer terminal transactions are insufficient to discharge the onus under Section 68, upholding the lower authorities' findings.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and without addressing the merits. To uphold natural justice and ensure the assessee receives an effective opportunity to represent their case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not duly served within the limitation period due to an incomplete address, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the marketing and reservation related receipts ('System Fund support fee') are not taxable as FTS/FIS, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Similarly, the Tribunal held that the Travel Agent Commission (TACP) is not in the nature of FTS/FIS and is not taxable in India, also based on prior rulings and the principle of consistency.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. AR did not press the DIN-related grounds and sought remission of the case to the AO. Agreeing, the ITAT decided to remit the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment order, ensuring the appellant is granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard, while refraining from commenting on the merits.
The Tribunal noted that for a subsequent assessment year, similar cash deposits by the assessee were treated as profit under Section 44AD. Both the assessee and revenue agreed to determine profit at 8% as per Section 44AD. Consequently, the AO was directed to recompute the profit at 8% on the total cash deposits.
The Tribunal proceeded ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and its 'strike off' status. It concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings, thus dismissing the appeal in limine. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to seek revival if it wishes to pursue the grievance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without addressing the merits, as Section 250(6) mandates a decision on the points for determination. Citing a Bombay High Court precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in it. It noted that the issue was squarely covered by previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case, some of which had been affirmed by the Delhi High Court. Applying the rule of consistency, and finding no material change in the factual position for the current assessment years, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals.