Loading ITAT cases…
607 orders · Page 8 of 13
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order due to non-appearance by the assessee, which was attributed to notice delivery issues to a former CA/accountant. Considering that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal deemed it expedient to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's DTVSV application and the Revenue's lack of objection, allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. A caveat was added, permitting the assessee to apply for reinstitution of the appeal if the dispute under the DTVSV 2024 is not ultimately resolved, to which the Revenue also had no objection.
The ITAT found that the Addl./JCIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the grounds challenging the validity of the 143(1) order and the claim for 80JJAA deduction. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Addl./JCIT(A) for fresh adjudication of all grounds raised by the assessee after giving a proper opportunity.
The Tribunal restored the lead appeal (ITA No. 3769/Del/2024) to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the appellant three opportunities to present facts. The duplicate appeal (ITA No. 3823/Del/2024) was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal observed the similar facts across both appeals. Considering the appellant's request for remand, to which the Departmental Representative did not object, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to provide the assessee due opportunity, and the assessee is instructed to make all necessary compliances.
The Tribunal observed that since the quantum addition, on which the penalty was based, had been substantially reduced by the Ld.CIT(A) and a consequential order was issued, the penalty sustained on the original higher amount could not be upheld. Therefore, the penalty order dated 28.06.2019 was set aside, and the issue of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh order, taking into account the reduced quantum addition and providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It was noted that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim that the payment was made by the firm and could not provide evidence to rebut the findings regarding the unexplained investment or the proper service of notices for the reopening proceedings. Consequently, the addition and the assessment under section 144/147 were sustained.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred by upholding the addition on an estimation basis without examining each entry on its merits, despite the assessee providing supportive material. Finding the impugned addition of Rs.94,66,666/- not sustainable, it was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal observed the similar facts across both appeals. Considering the appellant's request for remand, to which the Departmental Representative did not object, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to provide the assessee due opportunity, and the assessee is instructed to make all necessary compliances.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the Senior DR had no objection to the request or the caveat. It held that if the tax arrears dispute is not ultimately resolved under the DTVSV Act, the assessee is at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeal, and such application will be considered appropriately.
The Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s directions to re-compute the Section 54 deduction for AY 2013-14, holding that such proposed enhancement was not sustainable in law as it amounted to a new head of income, citing judicial precedents. Consequently, the assessee succeeded on the fourth ground related to the construction cost. The first three grounds of appeal were rejected as not contested by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was authenticated on 19-07-2022, which is significantly beyond the statutory time limit of 28-02-2022 prescribed under section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order was declared barred by limitation and void ab initio.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's cross-appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit of Rs. 60,00,000/-. The assessee's ground regarding the Education Cess was not pressed and was rejected. The assessee's appeal regarding the Section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowance was allowed, as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction under Section 14A(2) for making the disallowance.
The Tribunal restored the lead appeal (ITA No. 3769/Del/2024) to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the appellant three opportunities to present facts. The duplicate appeal (ITA No. 3823/Del/2024) was dismissed as infructuous.
The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it involved a tax effect lower than the minimum monetary limit specified by the CBDT circular. The appeal was rejected on this preliminary ground without delving into its merits.
The Tribunal deleted the addition, finding that the cash deposits, totaling Rs. 2,29,66,000/- across two financial years, were indeed proceeds from land transactions by the assessee and his family members. Citing precedent, it held that these amounts could not be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69.
The Tribunal noted that IITs are established by an Act of Parliament and their employees are governed by the 7th Central Pay Commission, indicating government funding and regulation. Citing a Madras High Court decision regarding TNAU employees, which held them equivalent to government servants for leave encashment exemption, the Tribunal concluded that IIT employees are also eligible for the full exemption under Section 10(10AA) as applicable to government employees.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee provided supporting evidence for the amount from Locker 122 being part of its books and offered explanations for the amount from Locker 125 as sales proceeds, despite it not being immediately incorporated. The Tribunal found no reason to dispute the assessee's explanation that the source of the recovered cash was business income. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the entire amount of Rs. 2,68,99,500/- should be treated as business income and not as an addition under section 69A, rendering section 115BBE inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that once the corporate guarantee is invoked, the underlying international transaction between the assessee and its AE ceases to exist for transfer pricing analysis from the year of invocation onwards. The subsequent interaction is between the assessee (guarantor) and EXIM Bank (unrelated). The TPO erred in treating the invoked guarantee as a deemed loan to the AE attracting arm's length interest, as the liability of the assessee as a guarantor to EXIM Bank does not automatically create a new loan in its books to the AE without actual payment or discharge of the AE's debt.
The tribunal, relying on CBDT instructions and judicial precedents (PCIT vs. Weilburger Coatings and Pr. CIT v. Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP), held that the Assessing Officer exceeded jurisdiction. The AO could not make additions on issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without converting the case to complete scrutiny with prior approval from the competent authority.
The tribunal, relying on CBDT instructions and judicial precedents (PCIT vs. Weilburger Coatings and Pr. CIT v. Sukhdham Infrastructures LLP), held that the Assessing Officer exceeded jurisdiction. The AO could not make additions on issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without converting the case to complete scrutiny with prior approval from the competent authority.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without considering the assessee's rectification request and the CBDT Circular No.7/2024, which addresses applications filed under wrong sub-sections. The order of the Ld. CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and considering the rectification application and the CBDT Circular.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the Assessing Officer's non-application of mind, evidenced by citing non-existent sections of the Income Tax Act for reopening the assessment. Consequently, all additions were quashed.
The tribunal admitted the additional evidence provided by the assessee (a supplementary receipt/confirmation) explaining the source of funds. Recognizing that the Assessing Officer had already accepted a similar deposit in the father's account, the tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue afresh considering the newly admitted evidence and after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(E) with directions to grant a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and then pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(E) with directions to grant a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and then pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO could not be sustained. The proceedings were initiated based on information from the search at JBL. The assessee denied any link to the names 'Anuj-Shamli & Shyamli' and the cash transactions. Crucially, neither copies of the documents/statements relied upon nor an opportunity to cross-examine the persons concerned (Sh. Parul Ahluwalia and Ms. Ekta Soni) were provided to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO relied on statements recorded during the search and reproduced relevant portions in the assessment order, necessitating the provision of documents and cross-examination opportunities. Following the decisions of Co-ordinate Benches in similar cases (Anoop Kumar Soni vs. DCIT and Surender Kumar Jain vs. ACIT), which set aside additions due to lack of documentary evidence and cross-examination opportunities, the Tribunal deleted the additions of INR 26,60,000/- under section 69A and INR 200/- for undisclosed income. As the appeal was allowed on merits, the legal grounds regarding jurisdiction and approval under section 153D were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B was also not adjudicated as the appeal was allowed on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, granting the assessee liberty to seek its restoration if their declaration filed under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is ultimately not accepted by the Revenue. This decision was made in line with the precedent set by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in a similar case.
The tribunal, noting the error in uploading incorrect documents and with no objection from the Departmental Representative, dismissed both the application for condonation of delay and the appeal as withdrawn, deeming them infructuous. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the receipt of money by way of repayment of an earlier loan cannot be equated with a fresh loan and thus the assessee is not obligated to prove the source of funds of the borrower. The Tribunal also noted violations of natural justice, such as the denial of cross-examination.
The Tribunal remanded the issues concerning cash contributions to share capital and issuance of shares from director's credit balance back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for re-examination under sections 68 and 250(6). The ground regarding the sundry creditor balance was not pressed by the assessee and was rejected. For the ad-hoc expense disallowance, the Tribunal reduced it to Rs. 2,00,000, providing the assessee a relief of Rs. 5,00,000.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with proper opportunity by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming that no additions can be made to completed assessments in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search operation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention as no incriminating evidence was found against the assessee. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided relief to the assessee based on a favorable remand report. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the Revenue lacks a valid standing to file an appeal against findings stemming from such a beneficial remand report.
The Tribunal acknowledged the sale of land by the assessee and his brothers. It ruled that the assessee could not be denied credit for the cash deposits, even if the entire sale price was deposited in his account, especially when other family members' bank accounts had not been examined. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the deposits originated from land transactions, leading to the deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments and adopted the reasoning of the Pune Tribunal which held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments of surplus funds with cooperative banks/societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and/or 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee's claim for exemption.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for low tax effect. It was noted that CBDT Circular no. 09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, increased the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department before the Tribunal to Rs. 60 lakhs, and no exceptions applied to this case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting and relying on new documents from the assessee without obtaining a remand report from the AO or providing the AO an opportunity to verify and rebut the documents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO for a de-novo assessment, instructing the AO to provide the assessee a full opportunity to present all evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming that no additions can be made to completed assessments in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search operation. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention as no incriminating evidence was found against the assessee. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were rendered infructuous and dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It further granted liberty for the assessee to revive the appeal if the VSVS application fails to mature, with a clear instruction that no condonation of delay application would be insisted upon for recalling the order if delayed due to communication of the VSVS outcome.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the source of funds for the group companies involved in the transactions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in passing the rectification order u/s 154 for an alleged double deduction, as the Assessee's claims were distinct. It also found that the CIT(A) erred by not deciding the actual issue in dispute and by exceeding its jurisdiction in disallowing an amount that was not part of the current appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted both the addition made by the AO u/s 154 and the disallowance made by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, citing High Court precedents, held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained on additions made merely on estimations after rejecting the books of accounts. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable and directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal, citing High Court precedents, held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained on additions made merely on estimations after rejecting the books of accounts. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable and directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, upholding the jurisdictional validity of the assessment orders as incriminating materials were found during the search. The additions for unexplained jewellery (Rs. 46,45,491/-), accommodation entries (Rs. 56,64,131/-), and unexplained cash (Rs. 1 lac) were confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and lack of assistance during the proceedings.
The tribunal rejected the assessee's primary plea that the disallowance was beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, regarding the assessee's alternative plea concerning the methodology of calculating default and the determination of the 'due date' for remittance, the tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to ascertain the due date for remittance of contributions and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal rejected the assessee's primary plea that the disallowance was beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, regarding the assessee's alternative plea concerning the methodology of calculating default and the determination of the 'due date' for remittance, the tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to ascertain the due date for remittance of contributions and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal rejected the assessee's primary plea that the disallowance was beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, regarding the assessee's alternative plea concerning the methodology of calculating default and the determination of the 'due date' for remittance, the tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to ascertain the due date for remittance of contributions and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.