Loading ITAT cases…
386 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal held that the transfer of booking rights did not occur on the date of the agreement to sell, but only upon fulfillment of all conditions, including the builder's consent and transfer of booking in the builder's records. Therefore, the capital gain was taxable in the subsequent assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessees had sufficiently discharged their primary onus under Section 68 by providing extensive documentation regarding the identity and creditworthiness of investors and the genuineness of transactions. It also affirmed that no addition for notional interest can be made without specific statutory backing, citing the principle of real income, and noted that the proviso to Section 68 regarding source of source was applicable only from AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessees had sufficiently discharged their primary onus under Section 68 by providing extensive documentation regarding the identity and creditworthiness of investors and the genuineness of transactions. It also affirmed that no addition for notional interest can be made without specific statutory backing, citing the principle of real income, and noted that the proviso to Section 68 regarding source of source was applicable only from AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal held that penalty could only be imposed based on material found during the search, not just an admission made during assessment proceedings. The additions made by the AO were also found to be based on presumptions or a loose sheet without direct evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that penalty could only be imposed based on material found during the search, not just an admission made during assessment proceedings. The additions made by the AO were also found to be based on presumptions or a loose sheet without direct evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that penalty could only be imposed based on material found during the search, not just an admission made during assessment proceedings. The additions made by the AO were also found to be based on presumptions or a loose sheet without direct evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that penalty could only be imposed based on material found during the search, not just an admission made during assessment proceedings. The additions made by the AO were also found to be based on presumptions or a loose sheet without direct evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that penalty could only be imposed based on material found during the search, not just an admission made during assessment proceedings. The additions made by the AO were also found to be based on presumptions or a loose sheet without direct evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that penalty could only be imposed based on material found during the search, not just an admission made during assessment proceedings. The additions made by the AO were also found to be based on presumptions or a loose sheet without direct evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that penalty could only be imposed based on material found during the search, not just an admission made during assessment proceedings. The additions made by the AO were also found to be based on presumptions or a loose sheet without direct evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that penalty could only be imposed based on material found during the search, not just an admission made during assessment proceedings. The additions made by the AO were also found to be based on presumptions or a loose sheet without direct evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that penalty could only be imposed based on material found during the search, not just an admission made during assessment proceedings. The additions made by the AO were also found to be based on presumptions or a loose sheet without direct evidentiary value.
The Tribunal found the Pr.CIT's revisional order unjustified. It held that the deeming fiction of Section 56(2)(viib) does not apply to shares issued primarily to existing shareholders, and thus the AO's order was not erroneous. The jurisdictional requirements for invoking Section 263 were not met.
The Tribunal observed that the penalty order of Rs. 1,50,000/- was issued without obtaining the mandatory prior approval of the Joint Commissioner, as required by Section 274 for penalties exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal deemed the order incompetent and a nullity, consequently setting aside the penalty.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's father was the sole account holder when the Rs.14,28,000/- cash deposit was made, and the assessee became a joint holder only one day later. Since no addition was made in the father's assessment for this deposit, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.14,20,000/- for cash deposit and Rs.1,31,691/- for accrued interest in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-determine the exact quantum of default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A). The AO must verify whether HSVP has already paid taxes on the EDC receipts and apply the principles from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court judgments regarding non-enforcement of demand if the payee has paid tax, and the correct period for charging interest. The assessee is to be given an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had indeed examined the share application money and made an addition under Section 68. Furthermore, since the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year, the provisions of Section 14A were not applicable. Consequently, the issues raised by the PCIT were not sufficient to deem the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was held to be invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had allowed similar warranty provisions in subsequent years. It found that the assessee demonstrated actual defects and rectification during the warranty period, making the provision eligible for deduction. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim after verifying the actual incurrence of expenses.
The Tribunal deleted the additions made in respect of Brham Pal Singh and Lekh Raj Singh, finding the assessee had sufficiently proved their creditworthiness and genuineness, and emphasizing that the assessee is not required to prove the "source of source." However, the addition related to Naresh Chauhan was confirmed, as the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the lender's creditworthiness for advancing Rs. 6,50,000/- was not adequately established.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions when the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had already found the transactions to be at arm's length. Furthermore, similar transactions in subsequent years were accepted by the department, establishing consistency.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions when the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had already found the transactions to be at arm's length. Furthermore, similar transactions in subsequent years were accepted by the department, establishing consistency.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions when the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had already found the transactions to be at arm's length. Furthermore, similar transactions in subsequent years were accepted by the department, establishing consistency.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions when the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had already found the transactions to be at arm's length. Furthermore, similar transactions in subsequent years were accepted by the department, establishing consistency.
The Tribunal held that RPM was the most appropriate method as the assessee operated as a mere reseller without significant value addition. It ruled against the aggregation of minor reimbursement and warranty claims (constituting only 1.5% of transaction value) with the primary purchase transaction, citing High Court precedents that support RPM for resellers without value addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish any material to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was upheld, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions when the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had already found the transactions to be at arm's length. Furthermore, similar transactions in subsequent years were accepted by the department, establishing consistency.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal concerning the substantive additions for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 had already been remanded by a co-ordinate bench to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored both the quantum appeal (regarding jewellery addition) and the penalty appeal (under Section 271AAB(1)(c)) to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance despite previous dismissal and restoration of the appeal. It held that the grounds challenging the justification of recourse to Section 263 by the revisionary authorities lacked substance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions when the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had already found the transactions to be at arm's length. Furthermore, similar transactions in subsequent years were accepted by the department, establishing consistency.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the assessee had provided a valuation report from an independent chartered accountant. The AO's objections to the valuation methodology were not sustainable, and the CIT(A) had the power to examine the issue threadbare.
The Tribunal sustained the disallowance of interest cost due to lack of business expediency. However, for the issue of advances to suppliers and inventory written off (Grounds 1 and 2), the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration as the assessee's vouchers were not considered. Ground 3 was rejected.
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings, concluding that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 were valid as the assessee had not filed an ITR. The assessee failed to provide supporting evidence for their claims that the deposits were sales or net payments, despite opportunities given by the CIT(A), thus upholding the additions.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the Assessing Officer had conducted relevant inquiries and formed an opinion, and the PCIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 was improperly exercised based on an assumption of lack of inquiry or a mere difference of opinion. The ITAT concluded that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and the PCIT's order was unjustified.
The Tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court's binding precedent in the assessee's own case (2016) and subsequent ITAT decisions for previous assessment years, held that the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) does not unilaterally override the definition of 'royalty' or 'FTS' under the DTAA. The High Court had concluded that payments for data transmission services do not fall under 'royalty' or 'FTS' per the DTAA and are business profits, taxable only if the assessee has a Permanent Establishment in India. Finding identical facts, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned addition for Grounds 1-3, while dismissing the penalty initiation ground as premature.
The ITAT admitted additional evidences submitted by the assessee, finding them crucial to substantiate the impugned issues not considered by the CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present all relevant evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment years in question were unabated on the date of search and that the additions were made without any reference to seized incriminating material, based solely on questionnaire and enquiry. Following the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that no additions can be made in unabated years under Section 153C without incriminating material. Consequently, the orders of the authorities below were set aside, and the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the power to extend the period for a special audit vests solely with the Assessing Officer. Since the extension was granted by the Pr. CIT, it was beyond the statutory powers, rendering the assessment order void ab initio.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment years in question were unabated on the date of search and that the additions were made without any reference to seized incriminating material, based solely on questionnaire and enquiry. Following the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that no additions can be made in unabated years under Section 153C without incriminating material. Consequently, the orders of the authorities below were set aside, and the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment years in question were unabated on the date of search and that the additions were made without any reference to seized incriminating material, based solely on questionnaire and enquiry. Following the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that no additions can be made in unabated years under Section 153C without incriminating material. Consequently, the orders of the authorities below were set aside, and the additions were deleted.
The tribunal found that the AO was not justified in refusing the assessee's adjournment request, thus denying reasonable opportunity of being heard. It further noted that the NFAC/CIT(A) failed to appreciate the assessee's evidence (Khatauni, Patwari records) and legal arguments regarding the land's agricultural status under Section 2(14). Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal found the affidavit for condonation of delay to be defective as it lacked proper attestation and clarity on the deponent's capacity and details of who was assigned the task of filing the appeal. The reasons provided for the delay were deemed insufficient, and it was also noted that no replies were furnished to the specific queries raised by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
For A.Y. 2013-14, the appeal was dismissed as additions were made without incriminating material found during search, relying on the Supreme Court's Abhisar Buildwell judgment. For A.Y. 2014-15, appeals regarding unexplained investment and property sale receipts were dismissed due to the primary recipient owning up to the transaction or the inapplicability of presumption under Section 132(4A)(ii) for third-party seized documents. The appeal concerning unexplained bank cash deposits for A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 were also dismissed, as the CIT(A) correctly considered cash withdrawals which exceeded deposits, and the AO failed to provide cogent material proving alternative use of withdrawals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions for cash deposits, noting a similar issue was decided in the assessee's favor in earlier assessment years. It also confirmed the deletion of additions for unexplained investment in property, accepting the assessee's explanation of sourcing funds from cash withdrawals, finding no contrary material.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the assessee's counsel desired to withdraw the appeal and the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was for a refund of excess prepaid taxes, not a deduction, and the AO had a statutory duty under Section 219 to grant credit for amounts reflected in Form 26AS. It ruled that the application for refund should not have been dismissed as time-barred under Section 154 in such circumstances. Therefore, the revenue authorities were directed to process the refund along with eligible interest under Section 244A.
The Tribunal held that the 'right to collect toll' is a business or commercial right eligible for depreciation as an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The reliance on the CBDT circular was deemed misplaced, and the assessee's claim was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations, income tax particulars of lenders, and evidence of banking channels. The fact that the lenders themselves were assessed to tax under Section 143(3) without adverse inferences further supported the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 11(1)(d), which include conditions for investment of corpus donations, were introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and are effective from April 1, 2022. Therefore, these amended provisions are not applicable to the Assessment Year 2018-19, and the addition made by the lower authorities by retrospectively applying the amendment was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind. Following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal found this invalidates the entire search assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind. Following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal found this invalidates the entire search assessment proceedings.