Loading ITAT cases…
607 orders · Page 3 of 13
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on general reports and SEBI orders without independent investigation or specific evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine a key witness, and SEBI had exonerated the assessee in related proceedings.
The Tribunal held that while protective additions are permissible, they are not sustainable when substantive additions have already been confirmed in the hands of another assessee (e.g., husband of one of the assessees) and the assessee in question is found to be a mere name-lender without independent income.
The tribunal held that for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 (ITA Nos. 1566 to 1568/Del/2018 and ITA Nos. 2194 to 2196/Del/2018), the assessments dated 31.03.2016 were quashed as the CIT-DR failed to pinpoint specific seized material, applying the principle from PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Thus, the assessee's appeals for these years were allowed, and Revenue's cross-appeals dismissed. For AY 2003-04 (ITA No. 1726/Del/2017), the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, ruling that no new claims could be entertained in this 'unabated' assessment as no proceedings were pending on the date of the second search (10.05.2007), relying on DCIT Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd.
The Tribunal, with no objection from the Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue, allowed the withdrawal of all pending appeals filed by the assessee. The Tribunal further granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the original appeals for hearing if they fail to avail the benefits of the DTVSV Scheme for any bona fide reasons.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reassessment were defective as they related to a different assessment year (AY 2014-15) than the one under consideration (AY 2012-13). Additionally, the reasons were vague and lacked specific information, and the approval granted by the Pr. CIT under Section 151 was without proper application of mind. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid and quashed the reassessment order.
The tribunal noted that the AO had conducted inquiries and rightly dropped the allegation of Rs. 14,00,000 from Sh. Himanshu Verma. The assessee consistently denied receiving any alleged bogus accommodation entries, including from the newly introduced entities, and provided an affidavit to that effect. Finding no error in the re-assessment order by the AO, the tribunal concluded that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified and thus quashed it.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking adjudication that violated the statutory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it neither framed points of determination nor provided a reasoned decision. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh, appropriate adjudication, subject to the appellant proving all relevant facts within three effective opportunities.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand (INR 12,72,000/-) immediately before demonetization from accumulated old savings and prior withdrawals, thus explaining the source of the cash deposits. Considering the assessee's old age, non-habitual defaulter status, and ultimate compliance, the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) was also reversed. Consequently, both the addition made by the AO and the penalty levied were set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had requested an adjournment and later submitted all the necessary documents. It was determined that the alleged non-compliance leading to the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was factually incorrect. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the assessee was deleted.
The Tribunal noted non-compliance with statutory provisions in the lower appellate proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to present all relevant facts within three effective opportunities.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on non-compete fees is not allowable as it is not an intangible asset. However, rental income from a property should be treated as income from house property, not business income. The assessments made under Section 153A were quashed due to invalid approval under Section 153D.
The Tribunal held that while protective additions are permissible, in this case, the substantive additions had already been confirmed in the hands of the principal assessee (husband of Smt. Saroj Bhatia and director of the company). Since the assessees were found to be mere 'namelanders' without independent taxable income, the protective additions were rightly deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's order was not sustainable as it was a general observation without specific findings on the details furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal stated that Section 263(1) Explanation 2(a) does not grant unfettered powers to revise an order merely because more inquiries could have been made.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect for AY 2012-13 (Rs. 48,96,376/-) and AY 2014-15 (Rs. 50,72,235/-) was below the Rs. 60 lakhs monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Ld. DR for the Revenue agreed with this position, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeals as not maintainable.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect for AY 2012-13 (Rs. 48,96,376/-) and AY 2014-15 (Rs. 50,72,235/-) was below the Rs. 60 lakhs monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Ld. DR for the Revenue agreed with this position, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeals as not maintainable.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to pursue the DTVSV Scheme and their request for withdrawal, which was agreed to by the Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a proviso that the Revenue could seek restoration if the assessee failed to benefit from the scheme.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on non-compete fees is not allowable as it is not an intangible asset. However, rental income from a property let out should be treated as income from house property and not business income. The assessments made under Section 153A were quashed due to invalid approval under Section 153D.
The Tribunal held that non-compete fees are not eligible for depreciation as intangible assets. However, rental income from a property should be treated as income from house property, not business income. The assessments made under Section 153A were quashed due to a lack of proper approval under Section 153D.
The ITAT, noting the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) and the substantial addition sustained, held that the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to be heard on the merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper hearing and re-adjudicate the matter on merits.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on non-compete fees is not allowable as it is not an intangible asset. However, rental income from a property let out for the first time should be treated as income from house property. The assessments made under Section 153A were quashed due to lack of proper approval under Section 153D.
The Tribunal partly allowed the quantum appeal, deleting disallowances related to payments to non-residents and interest on unused assets, while upholding some ad-hoc disallowances. The penalty appeal was allowed, holding that quantum disallowances do not automatically attract penalties.
The ITAT noted that the seized material was not confronted to the assessee during assessment proceedings and that the AO did not summon the parties to whom payments were allegedly made. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was deleted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor, M/s Bell Indus Fibercom (P) Ltd., and the genuineness of the transactions, which were conducted through banking channels.
The Tribunal, with no objection from the Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue, allowed the withdrawal of all pending appeals filed by the assessee. The Tribunal further granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the original appeals for hearing if they fail to avail the benefits of the DTVSV Scheme for any bona fide reasons.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not address the assessee's facts on merits and failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act regarding framing points of determination and detailed adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh re-adjudication, stipulating that the assessee must present and prove its case within three effective opportunities.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), noting the potential for miscarriage of justice, decided to remit the appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay with corroborative evidence and then pass a reasoned order on merits.
The Tribunal held that non-compete fees are not eligible for depreciation as intangible assets. However, rental income from a property should be treated as income from house property, not business income. The assessments made under Section 153A were quashed due to a lack of proper approval under Section 153D.
The Tribunal held that while protective additions are permissible, they are not sustainable when substantive additions have already been confirmed in the hands of another assessee (e.g., husband of one of the assessees) and the assessee in question is found to be a mere name-lender without independent income.
The Tribunal observed that the Revenue sought factual verification of the assessee's claims. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication and factual verification. The assessee was directed to present all relevant facts within three effective opportunities.
The tribunal held that for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 (ITA Nos. 1566 to 1568/Del/2018 and ITA Nos. 2194 to 2196/Del/2018), the assessments dated 31.03.2016 were quashed as the CIT-DR failed to pinpoint specific seized material, applying the principle from PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Thus, the assessee's appeals for these years were allowed, and Revenue's cross-appeals dismissed. For AY 2003-04 (ITA No. 1726/Del/2017), the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, ruling that no new claims could be entertained in this 'unabated' assessment as no proceedings were pending on the date of the second search (10.05.2007), relying on DCIT Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd.
The tribunal held that for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 (ITA Nos. 1566 to 1568/Del/2018 and ITA Nos. 2194 to 2196/Del/2018), the assessments dated 31.03.2016 were quashed as the CIT-DR failed to pinpoint specific seized material, applying the principle from PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Thus, the assessee's appeals for these years were allowed, and Revenue's cross-appeals dismissed. For AY 2003-04 (ITA No. 1726/Del/2017), the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, ruling that no new claims could be entertained in this 'unabated' assessment as no proceedings were pending on the date of the second search (10.05.2007), relying on DCIT Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd.
The tribunal held that for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 (ITA Nos. 1566 to 1568/Del/2018 and ITA Nos. 2194 to 2196/Del/2018), the assessments dated 31.03.2016 were quashed as the CIT-DR failed to pinpoint specific seized material, applying the principle from PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Thus, the assessee's appeals for these years were allowed, and Revenue's cross-appeals dismissed. For AY 2003-04 (ITA No. 1726/Del/2017), the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, ruling that no new claims could be entertained in this 'unabated' assessment as no proceedings were pending on the date of the second search (10.05.2007), relying on DCIT Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd.
The Tribunal, with no objection from the Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue, allowed the withdrawal of all pending appeals filed by the assessee. The Tribunal further granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the original appeals for hearing if they fail to avail the benefits of the DTVSV Scheme for any bona fide reasons.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to pursue the DTVSV Scheme and their request for withdrawal, which was agreed to by the Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with a proviso that the Revenue could seek restoration if the assessee failed to benefit from the scheme.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including the lender's details, bank statements, and financial records, to substantiate the business advances. The Assessing Officer had not doubted the genuineness of these documents.
The Tribunal held that while protective additions are permissible, they are not sustainable when substantive additions have already been confirmed in the hands of another assessee (e.g., husband of one of the assessees) and the assessee in question is found to be a mere name-lender without independent income.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on non-compete fees is not allowable as it is not an intangible asset. However, rental income from a property should be treated as income from house property, not business income. The assessments made without proper approval under Section 153D were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand (INR 12,72,000/-) immediately before demonetization from accumulated old savings and prior withdrawals, thus explaining the source of the cash deposits. Considering the assessee's old age, non-habitual defaulter status, and ultimate compliance, the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) was also reversed. Consequently, both the addition made by the AO and the penalty levied were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to provide cogent material to sustain the addition, as the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing evidence of online purchase, banking channel payments, and dematerialized transactions. The AO's inquiry was found deficient.
The Tribunal held that while protective additions are permissible, they are not sustainable when substantive additions have already been confirmed in the hands of another assessee (e.g., husband of one of the assessees) and the assessee in question is found to be a mere name-lender without independent income.
The Tribunal partly allowed the quantum appeal, deleting disallowances related to payments to non-residents and interest on unused assets, while upholding some ad-hoc disallowances. The penalty appeal was allowed, holding that quantum disallowances do not automatically attract penalties.
The tribunal held that for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 (ITA Nos. 1566 to 1568/Del/2018 and ITA Nos. 2194 to 2196/Del/2018), the assessments dated 31.03.2016 were quashed as the CIT-DR failed to pinpoint specific seized material, applying the principle from PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Thus, the assessee's appeals for these years were allowed, and Revenue's cross-appeals dismissed. For AY 2003-04 (ITA No. 1726/Del/2017), the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, ruling that no new claims could be entertained in this 'unabated' assessment as no proceedings were pending on the date of the second search (10.05.2007), relying on DCIT Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd.
The tribunal held that for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 (ITA Nos. 1566 to 1568/Del/2018 and ITA Nos. 2194 to 2196/Del/2018), the assessments dated 31.03.2016 were quashed as the CIT-DR failed to pinpoint specific seized material, applying the principle from PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. Thus, the assessee's appeals for these years were allowed, and Revenue's cross-appeals dismissed. For AY 2003-04 (ITA No. 1726/Del/2017), the tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, ruling that no new claims could be entertained in this 'unabated' assessment as no proceedings were pending on the date of the second search (10.05.2007), relying on DCIT Vs. Sew Infrastructure Ltd.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's intent to pursue the DTVSV Scheme. It granted the assessee the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal for hearing if they are unable to avail the benefits of the DTVSV Scheme for any bona fide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 for reopening the assessment for AY 2013-14 was legally unsustainable and contrary to law, as it was based on income below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Consequently, the directions of the DRP and the final assessment order were declared illegal and set aside.
The ITAT, relying on a precedent involving a sister concern, confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under Sections 69C and 68, finding no defect in the assessee's books or the genuineness of purchases. The ITAT further deleted the CIT(A)'s estimated addition of 0.25% on cash sales, stating there was no basis for such estimation as the assessee had already disclosed profits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's bio-medical waste treatment facility qualifies as an infrastructure facility under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal noted that this was a recurring issue and previous ITAT orders had favored the assessee.
The Tribunal, citing previous decisions, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the methodology for calculating the due date of PF/ESI deposits, specifically considering the month of actual salary disbursement, and pass a fresh order after granting the assessee a proper hearing and opportunity to present facts.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on non-compete fees is not allowable as it is not an intangible asset. However, rental income from letting out property should be treated as income from house property. The assessments made under Section 153A were quashed due to invalid approval under Section 153D.
The Tribunal found that the approval under Section 151 was a mere formality, simply "approved" without due consideration. Citing precedents like CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. and PCIT Vs. N.C. Cables Ltd., the tribunal quashed the impugned reopening initiated under Section 148/147, rendering all other arguments on merits academic.