Loading ITAT cases…
607 orders · Page 4 of 13
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 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 held that the AO had made specific inquiries and considered documentary evidence before completing the assessment. The PCIT's view that the assessment was erroneous was based on a difference of opinion, not a lack of inquiry, and thus Section 263 was not applicable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty for AY 2018-19, agreeing that the AO failed to provide conclusive evidence that cash sales were split to a single person to circumvent Section 269ST. For AY 2019-20, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed because the tax effect was below the Rs.60 lakh monetary limit for departmental appeals to the ITAT, as per CBDT Circular No.09/2024.
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.
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 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 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 the assessee, being a startup, is entitled to use the DCF method as per Rule 11UA. Disclaimers in the valuation report and comparing projections with actual performance are not valid grounds for rejection. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept the assessee's valuation and delete the additions.
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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in quashing the assessment. It held that an assessment under Section 153C cannot be sustained without incriminating material found during a search operation pertaining to the assessee. Since the additions were based on survey material and third-party statements, and not on seized incriminating documents related to the assessee, the assessment was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request and the Revenue's non-objection, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if they genuinely fail to avail the benefits of the DTVSV Scheme.
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 restored the issue of late payment of employee's EPF/ESIC contributions to the Assessing Officer for re-examination based on the actual disbursement of salary. The disallowance of business expenses due to a factual error by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
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 the approval granted by the Additional CIT was mechanical and without application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple years and lacked verification of records. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT was mechanical and without application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple years and lacked verification of records. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal observed that the applicant was already registered under Section 12AA and had an MoU with the Uttar Pradesh government for establishing a university. Citing a High Court precedent, the Tribunal held that registration under Section 12A/12AA is generally sufficient for charitable purposes, implying that 80G registration should not be denied. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT was mechanical and without application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple years and lacked verification of records. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT was mechanical and without application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple years and lacked verification of records. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal noted that the bank statements, though obtained by the AO via notice u/s 133(6), were not found during the actual search operation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that additions in assessments made u/s 153A, where no incriminating material is found during the search, are invalid. Consequently, the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 (ITA 811 & 812), upholding the Rs. 5,50,000/- addition by invoking Section 292C presumption due to lack of explanation and return filing. However, for A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2010-11 (ITA 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818), the tribunal allowed the appeals, relying on a CBDT circular (10.03.2023) which states that admissions made during a survey without independent corroborative material do not carry significant weight.
The Tribunal noted that the bank statements, though obtained by the AO via notice u/s 133(6), were not found during the actual search operation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that additions in assessments made u/s 153A, where no incriminating material is found during the search, are invalid. Consequently, the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note dated 03/10/2018 defines the deemed date of search. As per Section 153C, assessment can only be initiated for the six assessment years immediately preceding the financial year in which satisfaction is recorded (FY 2018-19, covering AY 2013-14 to 2019-20). Since AY 2011-12 falls outside this six-year period, the AO lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Department's appeal and rendering the Assessee's cross-objection infructuous.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte and considered the assessee's age (71 years old), her status as a housewife, and the builder's failure to deliver possession. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 (ITA 811 & 812), upholding the Rs. 5,50,000/- addition by invoking Section 292C presumption due to lack of explanation and return filing. However, for A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2010-11 (ITA 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818), the tribunal allowed the appeals, relying on a CBDT circular (10.03.2023) which states that admissions made during a survey without independent corroborative material do not carry significant weight.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's choice to pursue the DTVSV Scheme. It was further held that if the assessee, for any bona fide reasons, fails to avail the benefits of the VSV Scheme, they shall have the liberty to seek restoration of the original appeal for a hearing before the ITAT in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT was mechanical and without application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple years and lacked verification of records. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal condoned the 13-month delay in filing the appeal, finding the reason of non-receipt of notices reasonable and in the interest of justice. It remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) with directions to adjudicate the issues afresh, pass a speaking order, and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 (ITA 811 & 812), upholding the Rs. 5,50,000/- addition by invoking Section 292C presumption due to lack of explanation and return filing. However, for A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2010-11 (ITA 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818), the tribunal allowed the appeals, relying on a CBDT circular (10.03.2023) which states that admissions made during a survey without independent corroborative material do not carry significant weight.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 (ITA 811 & 812), upholding the Rs. 5,50,000/- addition by invoking Section 292C presumption due to lack of explanation and return filing. However, for A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2010-11 (ITA 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818), the tribunal allowed the appeals, relying on a CBDT circular (10.03.2023) which states that admissions made during a survey without independent corroborative material do not carry significant weight.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 (ITA 811 & 812), upholding the Rs. 5,50,000/- addition by invoking Section 292C presumption due to lack of explanation and return filing. However, for A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2010-11 (ITA 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818), the tribunal allowed the appeals, relying on a CBDT circular (10.03.2023) which states that admissions made during a survey without independent corroborative material do not carry significant weight.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 (ITA 811 & 812), upholding the Rs. 5,50,000/- addition by invoking Section 292C presumption due to lack of explanation and return filing. However, for A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2010-11 (ITA 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818), the tribunal allowed the appeals, relying on a CBDT circular (10.03.2023) which states that admissions made during a survey without independent corroborative material do not carry significant weight.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 (ITA 811 & 812), upholding the Rs. 5,50,000/- addition by invoking Section 292C presumption due to lack of explanation and return filing. However, for A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2010-11 (ITA 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818), the tribunal allowed the appeals, relying on a CBDT circular (10.03.2023) which states that admissions made during a survey without independent corroborative material do not carry significant weight.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3 years and 101 days in filing the assessee's lower appeal, considering the Supreme Court's directives regarding the exclusion of the Covid-19 pandemic period for limitation purposes. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.
The tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee couldn't fully substantiate the source, a complete rejection of past accumulations or withdrawals was not justified. Consequently, the tribunal decided a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,85,020/- was appropriate, granting the assessee a relief of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the initial addition.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's election to settle the dispute under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which the Revenue did not dispute. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal dismissed the appeals for A.Y. 2004-05 (ITA 811 & 812), upholding the Rs. 5,50,000/- addition by invoking Section 292C presumption due to lack of explanation and return filing. However, for A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2010-11 (ITA 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818), the tribunal allowed the appeals, relying on a CBDT circular (10.03.2023) which states that admissions made during a survey without independent corroborative material do not carry significant weight.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the Supreme Court's order (Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 dated 10.01.2022) which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes. The Tribunal held that dismissing the condonation application led to a miscarriage of justice and directed the matter to be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The tribunal, noting the assessee's non-appearance and inability to provide details, held that a lump sum net profit rate of 0.75% would be just and proper. This estimation was made based on the unique facts of the case and should not be considered a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was an employee holding a civil post under a 'State' (CCSHAU, Hissar, being a State University). Therefore, he was entitled to full exemption for leave encashment under section 10(10AA)(i), following precedents for gratuity under section 10(10)(i). The Tribunal found the non-allowance of this exemption to be a legal mistake apparent from the record, allowing rectification under section 154, and set aside the orders of lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction due to belated filing of Form 10CCB, even if filed before return processing, does not constitute a 'mistake apparent from record' rectifiable under section 154, as it involves interpretation. However, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to file an appeal against the original intimation under section 143(1) within 30 days, condoning any intervening delay.
The tribunal held that the annual write-off of lease premium for land is akin to rent and allowable as an expense, noting previous allowances and Supreme Court precedent against the revenue changing its stance. It further held that the license fees paid to Indian Railways for operating container trains constitute an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, citing Explanation 3 to the section and relevant tribunal decisions. Both disallowances were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide independent examination or evidence to prove the transactions were pre-arranged or bogus. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, and the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's favorable decision and the principle of adopting constructions beneficial to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that additions under Section 153A can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material for unabated assessments, the AO cannot make additions using other information.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10B is directory, not mandatory, citing High Court precedents. It observed that such compliance could even be made at the first appellate stage. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to re-adjudicate the assessee's claim on merits, allowing the assessee three opportunities to present all relevant facts.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted the assessee's election to settle the dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (2.0) and their request for withdrawal of appeals. As the Revenue did not contest these averments, the tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be granted three effective opportunities to present their case. The assessee bears the responsibility to plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility.