Loading ITAT cases…
169 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 was not validly exercised. The reassessment order was based on specific reasons, and the issue sought to be introduced by the PCIT was not part of those reasons. Therefore, the revisionary proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable explanation for the cash deposits, which were sourced from withdrawals from its own bank account. The Revenue did not demonstrate that the withdrawn amount was used for any other purpose.
The Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the assessee's entitlement to one self-occupied property and finalize the ALV for the co-owned property after granting an opportunity of hearing. It was further held that the addition for the property solely owned by the wife, an independent taxpayer, cannot be made in the assessee's hands, and the claim for interest deduction of Rs. 2 lakhs must be allowed.
The Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2009-10, the maximum time period of ten assessment years under Section 153C, counted backward from the date of search, did not cover this period. Furthermore, for Assessment Year 2012-13, the lower authorities did not record the Section 153C satisfaction in the specified format. Therefore, the penalties levied were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be granted with an independent application of mind for each assessment year and each assessee, and cannot be a mechanical or ritualistic formality. The approvals in this case were found to be lacking this due diligence.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without due application of mind, as it was a single approval for multiple assessment years and cases, and was granted on the same day. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed without a valid section 153D approval and without initiating proper proceedings under section 148 or 153C is invalid. The assessment was quashed on both counts.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for AY 2016-17 due to lack of incriminating material, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Abhishar Buildwell. For other years, undisclosed profits were to be calculated based on seized documents, and farmhouse expenses were allowed as business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 38,791 which was not claimed in prior years. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of this claim.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to restore them if the Vivad se Vishwas scheme application fails. The dismissal does not preclude litigation for other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2009-10, the maximum time period of ten assessment years under Section 153C, counted backward from the date of search, did not cover this period. Furthermore, for Assessment Year 2012-13, the lower authorities did not record the Section 153C satisfaction in the specified format. Therefore, the penalties levied were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. A caveat was placed that the appeal can be restored if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based solely on a valuation report found during a search, which was not sufficiently supported by other evidence. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in an identical case where similar additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 is applicable even if the assessee claims not to maintain books of account, provided a cash book is produced. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the Rs. 78,00,000/- cash credit.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee, considering them to be jurisdictional issues. However, regarding the validity of the approval under section 153D, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's plea. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not cooperated in the assessment proceedings, and a non-cooperative assessee cannot raise technical pleas as an escape route. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue that the plea taken at this stage should be rejected. Nevertheless, observing that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without a proper opportunity for the assessee and that the CIT(A) affirmed the Assessing Officer's action, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided that the matter required a de novo assessment. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessees were directed to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. JCIT(A) should be condoned in the interest of justice. The reasoning was that after considering the submissions made by the assessee and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was of the considered view that the delay ought to be condoned. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. JCIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the Ld. JCIT(A) and cooperate with the tax authorities. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts by not accepting the cash withdrawals of Rs. 8 lacs as explained. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sold an immovable property on 13.04.2011 and deposited the sale consideration into her bank account. Subsequently, she withdrew Rs. 4 lacs twice on 19.04.2011. The Tribunal found that these withdrawals were sufficient to explain the investment in question. Consequently, the addition amounting to Rs. 7,52,060/- was directed to be deleted. The principle derived is that if cash withdrawals from a bank account, sourced from the sale of an asset, are used for an investment, and these withdrawals are adequately explained, the investment cannot be treated as unexplained under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was based on a mere change of opinion and not on any fresh material. The reassessment was initiated solely based on audit objections without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the bank statements relied upon by the assessee before the CIT(A) were not verified. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the bank statements and to pass an order accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was not proper and bad in law as the additions made by the AO were not based on the satisfaction note. The Tribunal found no clear link between the bank withdrawals noted and the alleged accommodation entries, deeming the presumption made by the AO unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's action of adjudicating the appeals on merits after deciding to treat them as not maintainable was incorrect and rejected this approach. Regarding the delay in filing appeals before the NFAC, the Tribunal found that the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, specifically the illness of the authorized representative, constituted a sufficient cause for not filing the appeals in time. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The Tribunal directed the NFAC to condone the delay, admit the assessee's appeals for adjudication, and decide the issues in dispute afresh, uninfluenced by its earlier observations. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and was permitted to file fresh evidence and additional grounds. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration, acknowledging the assessee's claim of being in the milk business and receiving cash, despite previous non-compliance. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without hearing the Assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. The matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the assessee's appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were allowed. The Revenue's appeals were largely dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary approval from the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act for reopening the assessment, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant previous year. This failure vitiates the reopening proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated based on these invalid assessment orders were also quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to this submission.
The Tribunal held that once an assessee opts for settlement under a scheme and withdraws objections, the DRP and AO are not required to decide the issue on merits. The assessee cannot have grievances after settling the dispute.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The tribunal noted a landmark Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT which settled the issue in favor of the department, stating that ESI/EPF contributions must be deposited before the due date of the corresponding statute. The aspect of actual salary disbursement was not adjudicated by lower authorities.
The tribunal held that the disallowance of indirect expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not sustainable due to lack of proper examination by the AO and relied on previous ITAT and High Court decisions. Issues related to a grant/subsidy and a differential sum were remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order itself was quashed in the assessee's prior appeal, the penalty levied based on that assessment order had no legal basis. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The ITAT held that the procedure adopted by the NFAC was not known to law. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the NFAC had rejected the assessee's request for condonation of delay without providing any reasoned findings that took into account the period of delay or the reasons cited by the assessee. Furthermore, the NFAC had not adjudicated the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the impugned order of the NFAC. The Tribunal directed the NFAC to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing on the application for condonation of delay. Following this, the NFAC is to pass further orders as per law based on the adjudication of the delay condonation application. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only.
The Tribunal held that Persistent Systems Ltd. is functionally dissimilar to the assessee due to its engagement in the sale of software products, in addition to software services. Therefore, it should be excluded from the list of comparables.
The Tribunal noted that after a recall/rectification order, the sole substantive issue pressed by the assessee was the challenge to the addition of Rs. 16,56,509/- under Section 40(a)(ia). The assessee's counsel clarified that the challenge was limited to ensuring that no double addition was made, given that the assessee had already self-added a portion of this amount in its computation. The Tribunal accepted this submission. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the assessing authority. The assessing authority was directed to frame the consequential computation after ensuring that no double disallowance or addition was made in the hands of the assessee concerning the Rs. 16,56,509/-. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The issues concerning the condonation of delay and the addition of Rs. 12,88,983/- were not decided as they were no longer pressed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation as the AO was not entitled to an extension for a valuation report that was not received. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, aligning with previous decisions. It also ruled that the charging of interest under Section 234B is mandatory and that challenges to penalty proceedings at this stage are premature.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the surviving period and, as per the amended Section 149, could only be issued if the escapement of income exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was flawed.
The Tribunal held that the mandatory approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was granted mechanically without proper application of mind by the Joint Commissioner. This mechanical exercise of power vitiated the entire assessment proceedings, and consequently, the assessment orders were declared void ab initio and quashed, without adjudicating the quantum additions on merits.
The Tribunal found that Madhya Pradesh Today Media Company is not functionally similar to the assessee as it is engaged in the newspaper business. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude this company from the list of comparables and recompute the Arm's Length Price. If the assessee's margin falls within the range after recomputation, no adjustment should be made.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground of appeal concerning the non-adjudication of an additional ground about protective addition. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to take a report from the AO on factual aspects regarding unexplained items and decide afresh, sustaining the revenue's grounds for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, found that the issues required verification and examination of documents. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to recall the order if the scheme was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to recall the order if the scheme was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions, noting that similar expenses were allowed in subsequent assessment years and in the assessee's own cases by co-ordinate benches. The Tribunal noted that the revenue could not distinguish the facts from previous favourable orders.
The ITAT held that in the interest of justice, the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside. The Tribunal reasoned that while the assessee had failed to make representations before the CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed ex-parte, the assessee's subsequent vigilance in appearing before the ITAT warranted a fresh opportunity. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and participate in the proceedings, filing necessary evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific findings were made on the merits of the additions.
The Tribunal held that the registration certificates under Section 12A(a) and 80G were statutory orders not requiring extensive scrutiny. The Tribunal found that remanding the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, while granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit further evidence, would serve the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the department's re-characterization of the assessee's services as commission agency without a material change in facts or law was inconsistent. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the TPO/AO for a de novo Transfer Pricing Analysis with correct filters.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to recall the order if the scheme was unsuccessful.