Loading ITAT cases…
589 orders · Page 2 of 12
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that both the Rs. 8 lakhs addition and the Rs. 9.5 lakhs, for which penalty was levied, represented cash sale consideration, not unexplained income or loans violating section 269SS. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the addition and deleted the penalty, allowing both appeals.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of salary expenses was not justified as the payees paid tax at a comparable rate and some were not covered under Section 40A(2)(b). The disallowance of interest expenses was also not justified as sufficient interest-free funds were available for investment.
The Tribunal observed that neither the assessee fully proved the source of deposits nor the department could entirely rebut the claims. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal held that a lump sum addition of Rs. 10 lakhs was just and proper, thereby granting the assessee a relief of Rs. 11.5 lakhs. This estimation is not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that expenses not directly linked to the eligible unit cannot be allocated to it, and that the AO cannot reallocate expenses under Section 80IA(8). It also directed deletion of additions on account of gift and garden expenses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that both the Rs. 8 lakhs addition and the Rs. 9.5 lakhs, for which penalty was levied, represented cash sale consideration, not unexplained income or loans violating section 269SS. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the addition and deleted the penalty, allowing both appeals.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment initiated beyond three years (notice issued 29.03.2022 for AY 2015-16) was invalid. As per Section 149(1)(b), the threshold for reopening beyond three years is Rs. 50 lakhs, but the actual addition made by the AO was only Rs. 47 lakhs. The AO's reliance on the cumulative value of property transactions (Rs. 1.33 crore) without differentiating the actual income escaping assessment was deemed a mechanical reopening. Therefore, the reopening was vitiated for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act cannot be made for debatable and controversial issues. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal found the addition made by the revenue concerning employee contributions, even if deposited after the statutory due dates but before the ITR due date, to be beyond the scope of Section 143(1). Consequently, the order passed by the CPC Bangalore was deemed erroneous and quashed.
The Tribunal held that expenses not directly linked to the eligible unit cannot be allocated to it, and that the AO cannot reallocate expenses under Section 80IA(8). It also directed deletion of additions on account of gift and garden expenses.
The tribunal noted that the Learned Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the tribunal accepted the assessee's request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on FDRs was inextricably linked to the business of investment management and the setting up of the company's operations. Therefore, it should be treated as business income, and related expenses should be allowed.
The Tribunal observed that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to the non-placement of crucial evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is given a full opportunity of being heard and to present all relevant evidence. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative accepted the factual position regarding the low tax effect. It found that the tax effect was indeed below Rs. 60,00,000/- as stipulated by CBDT Circular no. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024, and no exceptions were applicable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to low tax involvement, with liberty granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if it falls under any exceptions or if the tax effect subsequently exceeds the limit.
The Tribunal held that salary received by a director is taxable under the head 'Salary' and not 'Income from Other Sources'. It also deleted additions for certain bank deposits and an amount of salary, but restored issues related to unexplained bank deposits and business expenditures to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the jurisdictional issue had no merit, as the assessee's jurisdiction appeared to lie with the AO in Faridabad based on her PAN history and past filings. It also found that the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposit with corroborative evidence. Consequently, the addition was confirmed, and the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that, in light of the Supreme Court's moratorium order prohibiting the institution of proceedings and enforcement of orders against the companies, the present appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in-limine, with liberty granted to both the assessees and the department to seek their restoration if the moratorium is lifted or circumstances change.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay, noting that it included the Covid-19 pandemic period which the Supreme Court has directed to be excluded for limitation purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the 2250-day delay and directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal on its merits within three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that salary received by a director is taxable under the head 'Salary' and not 'Income from Other Sources'. It also deleted additions for certain bank deposits and an amount of salary, but restored issues related to unexplained bank deposits and business expenditures to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal, including the challenge to the reopening of assessment and the validity of the Section 148 notice, due to the assessee's failure to furnish any supporting material. The addition of commission income was upheld, and the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D was confirmed, as the assessee presented no controverting evidence against the lower authorities' findings. Consequently, the entire appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the 110-day delay in filing the appeals. It held that the addition made by the AO was invalid because it was based on grounds different from those recorded for reopening the assessment, and no addition was made on the original grounds. Since the assessee denied having an HDFC account, the onus shifted to the department to prove its existence, which it failed to do. Consequently, the addition was unsustainable, and both appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) erred in invoking Section 263 because the AO had already disallowed the exemption under Sections 11 & 12. Therefore, the issues raised by the CIT(E) regarding the use of funds and depreciation did not survive for further examination under Section 263. Additionally, the Tribunal noted a violation of natural justice due to improper service of the show cause notice.
Considering the assessee's past returned income and cash in hand figures, which were not properly credited, and the assessee's inability to fully reconcile figures, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restrict the addition to Rs. 2,41,500/-. This decision resulted in a relief of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the assessee, with the caveat that this estimation should not set a precedent.
The Tribunal condoned the 110-day delay in filing the appeals. It held that the addition made by the AO was invalid because it was based on grounds different from those recorded for reopening the assessment, and no addition was made on the original grounds. Since the assessee denied having an HDFC account, the onus shifted to the department to prove its existence, which it failed to do. Consequently, the addition was unsustainable, and both appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred by including the period from 15.3.2020 to 19.10.2020 in the delay calculation, as this period should be excluded for limitation purposes according to the Supreme Court's decision in *Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC)*. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, with the onus on the assessee to prove relevant facts.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271AAB was defective for not specifying the charges. Consequently, the penalty was deleted on technical grounds.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirmed that the CIT(A) had correctly held the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 to be bad in law. Since the Revenue did not challenge the CIT(A)'s finding on the jurisdictional defect, the ITAT concluded that the appeal on merits against the deletion of the addition was irrelevant and became a non-starter.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal continued to be defective as the appeal memo and grounds were unsigned, and no steps were taken to rectify this substantive defect. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appeal was a nullity in law and dismissed it in limine without considering the merits of the case.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to await the decision on the assessee's pending application under Section 119 of the Act for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A. Upon disposal of the said application by the competent authority, the AO is directed to pass an order in accordance with law.
The tribunal found the assessee's explanation plausible, noting that cash sales constituted a small percentage of total turnover and were spread throughout the year, not solely during demonetization. It held that the AO could not reject audited books of accounts based on mere suspicion without identifying specific defects. The tribunal concluded that the cash deposits were adequately explained as originating from genuine cash sales and cash in hand.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no fault in its reasoning for confirming the additions. The ITAT agreed that the additions were justified given the applicability of Section 292C and the appellant's failure to rebut the statutory presumption regarding the seized documents. The appeal was heard ex-parte against the appellant due to repeated non-appearances.
The Tribunal held that, in light of the Supreme Court's moratorium order prohibiting the institution of proceedings and enforcement of orders against the companies, the present appeals were not maintainable. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in-limine, with liberty granted to both the assessees and the department to seek their restoration if the moratorium is lifted or circumstances change.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC order was unsustainable due to the denial of a proper hearing opportunity and non-examination of merits. It allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the NFAC to restore the appeal, grant a fair hearing, and decide the matter afresh.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by HCLT to the assessee were not to be construed as 'Fees for Technical Services' and were therefore not taxable in India. The Tribunal found that the services were performed outside India and utilized for earning income outside India.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee had not included the provision for gratuity in its P&L account, effectively disallowing it as per section 40A(7). The Tribunal found the assessee's contention to be correct and upheld the deletion of the addition made by the CPC.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by HCLT to the assessee were not to be construed as 'Fees for Technical Services' and were therefore not taxable in India. The Tribunal found that the services were performed outside India and utilized for earning income outside India.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that the quashed Section 144 assessment was a nullity and its additions could not be adopted in the Section 153A assessment. Since no assessment was pending for A.Y. 2014-15 on the search date and no incriminating material was found, the AO was directed to adopt the assessee's NIL returned income.
The Tribunal upheld the estimated net profit addition on the turnover of Rs. 20,58,040/-. However, for the Section 69A addition of Rs. 16 lakhs for cash deposits, the Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 2.50 lakhs, thereby deleting Rs. 13.50 lakhs, specifying that this decision would not serve as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by HCLT to the assessee were not to be construed as 'Fees for Technical Services' and were therefore not taxable in India. The Tribunal found that the services were performed outside India and utilized for earning income outside India.
The tribunal acknowledged partial merit in the assessee's claim regarding cash from regular business sales but noted that the assessee failed to reconcile all deposits satisfactorily. Considering the peculiar facts, the tribunal deemed it appropriate to confirm an addition of only Rs. 3,00,000/-, thereby granting relief of Rs. 29,14,500/-, with the condition that this decision should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the additions made by the AO under Section 153A were beyond the scope of jurisdiction. This was because no incriminating material was found during the search, and no assessment was pending for the relevant assessment year, as per the principles established in *Kabul Chawla* and *Abhisar Buildwell* cases.
The Tribunal determined that the issue required a factual reconciliation at the CIT(A)/NFAC level rather than substantive adjudication by the Tribunal. Consequently, the case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to present relevant facts.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's denial of Dividend Distribution Tax liability in principle. Consequently, it decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh factual verification and adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide the assessee with three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271AAB was defective for not specifying the charges. Consequently, the penalty was deleted on technical grounds.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents, including blank share transfer forms signed by directors, were incriminating. The AO's inference that the share application money was not genuine was based on valid grounds, especially given the lack of cooperation from investor companies.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of revisional power under Section 263 was without jurisdiction because the primary assessment order, from which the issue of notional commission directly arose, was already under challenge and pending appeal before the CIT(A). Citing Explanation 1(c) to Section 263, the Tribunal concluded that such revisional proceedings are barred when the related issue is pending before the First Appellate Authority.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision which held that remittances made by HCLT to foreign subsidiaries/AEs were not taxable in India. Consequently, the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source under Section 195, and the additions under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the lack of departmental records and the assessee's claims of forgery. It remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing, conclude assessment proceedings, and investigate the serious allegations of forgery as per the assessee's affidavit.
The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred by not excluding the Covid-19 period for limitation, citing *Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re (2022)441 ITR 722 (SC)*. It restored the quantum appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, requiring the assessee to prove the case within three opportunities. The consequential penalty appeal (ITA No. 2740/Del/2024) will follow the same order.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that once the underlying quantum addition, which serves as the foundation for the penalty, is deleted, the penalty itself cannot be sustained. The ld. DR conceded this point during the hearing, acknowledging that the penalty falls when its basis is removed.
The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred by not excluding the Covid-19 period for limitation, citing *Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re (2022)441 ITR 722 (SC)*. It restored the quantum appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, requiring the assessee to prove the case within three opportunities. The consequential penalty appeal (ITA No. 2740/Del/2024) will follow the same order.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of section 263 was invalid because no disallowance under section 14A can be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. It noted that the Delhi High Court has held the explanation to section 14A to be applicable from A.Y. 2022-23, implying that for A.Y. 2018-19, disallowance without exempt income is unwarranted.