Loading ITAT cases…
386 orders · Page 5 of 8
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of the cash source (opening cash balance and significant past withdrawals from her bank account in 2015 and 2016, totaling Rs.11,53,500/- before demonetization) to be reasonable, especially considering her advanced age (67 years) and the common practice of keeping cash for exigencies. Concluding that the preponderance of probabilities favored the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs.8,03,500/-.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's services included negotiating, purchasing, inspecting products, and logistics, which the Revenue argued were technical, managerial, and consultancy services. However, the Tribunal ruled that since the assessee only earned a 1% markup and the core services were connectivity-related and ancillary, the amounts could not be treated as technical, managerial, or consultancy services and thus not FTS under Section 9(1)(vii). The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in CIT Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of the cash source (opening cash balance and significant past withdrawals from her bank account in 2015 and 2016, totaling Rs.11,53,500/- before demonetization) to be reasonable, especially considering her advanced age (67 years) and the common practice of keeping cash for exigencies. Concluding that the preponderance of probabilities favored the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs.8,03,500/-.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea for an opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given proper opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal emphasized that assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct and independent. Considering the assessee's medical condition and the requirement for separate adjudication of penalties, both appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal emphasized that assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct and independent. Considering the assessee's medical condition and the requirement for separate adjudication of penalties, both appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities are not prevented from entertaining claims made by the assessee, even if they are new claims not originally filed. The dismissal of these grounds in limine by the CIT(A) was not in consonance with judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that hedging transactions to cover foreign currency risk, being incidental to the assessee's business, constitute an ordinary business expenditure allowable under Section 37 of the Act. It clarified that such exchange loss is a revenue loss and not speculative, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the AO to allow the claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, agreeing that the assessee was given insufficient opportunity to explain the cash source. It also found the CIT(A)'s order to be unreasoned. Thus, the first appellate order was set aside, and the case remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring reasonable opportunity for the assessee to adduce evidence.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s deletion of administrative expenses to be justifiable, agreeing that business existence is key for expense claims. However, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 68 addition to be hasty and lacking proper inquiry, setting aside the order for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-appearance but also the substantial addition sustained by the CIT(A), decided to grant the assessee another opportunity for a merit-based hearing. The matter is remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on merit after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and make submissions, thus the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's services included negotiating, purchasing, inspecting products, and logistics, which the Revenue argued were technical, managerial, and consultancy services. However, the Tribunal ruled that since the assessee only earned a 1% markup and the core services were connectivity-related and ancillary, the amounts could not be treated as technical, managerial, or consultancy services and thus not FTS under Section 9(1)(vii). The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in CIT Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the discrepancy in the amount claimed as reinvestment for house property and the citation of Section 54 instead of Section 54F did not amount to 'concealment of income' or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The issue was deemed a claim of expenditure in property purchase. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was found to be unjustified and was obliterated.
The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders and the reasons for the assessee's non-appearance. To ensure natural justice, all orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders and the reasons for the assessee's non-appearance. To ensure natural justice, all orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders and the reasons for the assessee's non-appearance. To ensure natural justice, all orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders and the reasons for the assessee's non-appearance. To ensure natural justice, all orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders and the reasons for the assessee's non-appearance. To ensure natural justice, all orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the source of the cash deposit. Therefore, it restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present documentary evidence.
Following a precedent set in *Spentex Industries Ltd.*, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues in light of the precedent and natural justice, once the moratorium imposed by NCLT is lifted or clarified. The appeals were ultimately allowed for statistical purposes.
Following a precedent set in *Spentex Industries Ltd.*, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues in light of the precedent and natural justice, once the moratorium imposed by NCLT is lifted or clarified. The appeals were ultimately allowed for statistical purposes.
Following a precedent set in *Spentex Industries Ltd.*, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues in light of the precedent and natural justice, once the moratorium imposed by NCLT is lifted or clarified. The appeals were ultimately allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that no incriminating material was found during the search and seizure operation to support the additions made by the AO. Citing Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents, it reaffirmed that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition can be made under Section 153A.
The ITAT held that the re-determination of interest period under Section 244A for delayed refund credit is a clerical error rectifiable under Section 154. It found the assessee was entitled to interest up to the actual credit date (25.02.2021) and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the interest accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was a technical/procedural default, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and extensions granted for tax filings. Citing judicial precedents, it ruled that such a delay cannot be a ground to deny the exemption claimed under Sections 11 and 12. The AO/CPC was directed to delete the adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the 36-day delay was nominal and without mala fide intent. Citing Supreme Court precedents, it emphasized a liberal, justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay, asserting that technicalities should not override a decision on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and re-adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of the validity of reopening the assessment back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as it was not addressed in the first appeal. Further, the Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the transfer of leasehold rights in land and building, as it specifically applies only to land or building or both.
The ITAT held that the fact of donation was undisputed by the tax authorities, and refusing to acknowledge it merely due to the lack of a formal application under Rule 46A was not justified. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the Section 80G deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT had mechanically invoked Section 263 without properly examining the assessment records. The materials on record indicated that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries, making the assessment order not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The CIT(A) appreciated the assessee's evidence, confirming that payments for gratuity and leave encashment were indeed made. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the disallowance under Section 43B was not warranted and was correctly deleted by the CIT(A).
The ITAT held that the re-determination of interest period under Section 244A for delayed refund credit is a clerical error rectifiable under Section 154. It found the assessee was entitled to interest up to the actual credit date (25.02.2021) and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the interest accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, citing Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the NCLT's order dated 15.05.2018 approving a resolution plan and the consequent moratorium. It concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the present proceedings given the NCLT's jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, with a provision for revival if the NCLT's order is subsequently reversed or modified by a higher judicial forum.
The ITAT, following the precedent set in M/s. Greatship (India) Ltd., and referring to Section 199(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 37BA, upheld the order of the CIT(A). Consequently, the TDS credit was allowed to the assessee for the assessment year in question.
Following the precedent set by coordinate benches in similar cases, including the assessee's own case for AY 2018-19, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to ascertain the correct due date for the remittance of PF/ESI contributions after allowing the assessee to present all relevant facts and evidence and provide adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee had fully disclosed the commodity trading profits. It clarified that the prohibition on setting off losses under Section 115BBE was effective from AY 2017-18, not AY 2015-16. The Tribunal also noted that an earlier ITAT order had already decided this issue in the assessee's favour and even if the addition was sustained, it would be offset by business losses, making the revenue's appeal academic.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had indeed purchased agricultural land, as evidenced by a certificate from the Tehsildar. It was held that since agricultural land is excluded from the definition of a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(x) cannot be invoked in this case. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that a portion of the interest-free loans was made from the assessee's own sufficient funds. For the remaining advances to the subsidiary GLMPL, it was a strategic investment for commercial expediency, as both entities had identical business objects and the investment significantly benefited the assessee's business growth, leading to substantial revenue. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the loan borrowed from IFCI was utilized only for the purpose of business.
For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal held that disallowing 100% of purchases while accepting sales was not justified, and directed a disallowance of 12.5% of the disputed purchases. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found that the payment made to Apex Associates was for previous years' outstanding balances and no purchases were recorded for the current year, thus deleting the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the AO had determined liability based on joint ownership. However, considering the assessee's submission of evidence (bank statements, purchase/sale agreements) detailing the actual investment ratios (19.50% for assessee and 80.50% for her husband), the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO for re-verification and re-assessment based on these actual investment proportions, providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged the NCLT's order dated 15.05.2018 approving a resolution plan and the consequent moratorium. It concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the present proceedings given the NCLT's jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, with a provision for revival if the NCLT's order is subsequently reversed or modified by a higher judicial forum.
The Tribunal acknowledged the NCLT's order dated 15.05.2018 approving a resolution plan and the consequent moratorium. It concluded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the present proceedings given the NCLT's jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, with a provision for revival if the NCLT's order is subsequently reversed or modified by a higher judicial forum.
For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal held that since sales were accepted, a 100% disallowance of purchases in isolation was inappropriate and directed a 12.5% disallowance. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found that the payment of Rs. 4,85,000/- was for previous year's outstanding balance, not current year purchases, and therefore deleted the addition.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal held that in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 (dated 08/08/2019) revising the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 50 Lacs and its clarification (dated 20/08/2019) making it applicable to pending appeals, the current appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal, applying the "peak theory," restricted the addition for unexplained cash deposits to Rs. 9,70,000/-, noting that the assessee should be taxed on real income rather than the entire deposit. It dismissed grounds relating to natural justice violations and found other grounds to be consequential or not pressed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to confront critical evidence and statements to the assessee, and the investigation report relied upon was not specific to the assessee's transaction or the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal also ruled that "common knowledge" of higher market rates cannot be the sole basis for an addition, the burden of proof lies with the Revenue, and the AO improperly rejected the DVO's valuation report, which estimated the property value lower than the declared price, without substantive contrary evidence.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Checkmate Services P. Ltd.', held that late deposit of employee's contributions is not allowable and Section 43B is not applicable to such contributions. It also affirmed that such disallowances can be made as prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1)(a), considering it an 'incorrect claim' rather than a 'debatable issue' in light of the settled legal position.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Checkmate Services P. Ltd.', held that late deposit of employee's contributions is not allowable and Section 43B is not applicable to such contributions. It also affirmed that such disallowances can be made as prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1)(a), considering it an 'incorrect claim' rather than a 'debatable issue' in light of the settled legal position.
Regarding the rental income addition, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, citing a failure to examine the assessee's contentions and evidence. For the Section 80C deduction, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission, accepting the provided acknowledgement from IDBI Federal Life Insurance and the Corporation Bank statement as proof of payment, and directed the AO to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that for determining if agricultural land is a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii)(b), the municipal limits existing on the date of the relevant Central Government notification (06.01.1994) should be considered, not the date of sale or subsequent expansions. Since no further notification was issued after 06.01.1994 and the land was beyond 8 km from the municipal limits as per the 1994 notification, it was not a capital asset. The addition of long-term capital gain was thus set aside.