Loading ITAT cases…
808 orders · Page 17 of 17
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble P&H High Court, in a similar case, held that interest on enhanced compensation is not taxable as income from other sources in the year of receipt. However, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and other ITAT benches have ruled in favour of the revenue on this issue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution without adjudicating the case on merit. The CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals on merit even in ex-parte orders, as per statutory provisions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT has jurisdiction to revise assessment orders passed under the faceless assessment regime. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not conducted adequate inquiries into the issues raised by the PCIT.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 10.15 lakhs under section 68 as an unexplained cash credit was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessment year 2017-18 was an 'unabated' one, as the search action under section 132 occurred on 11.01.2019, after the close of the assessment year. Relying on the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Builwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC), the Tribunal reiterated that in 'unabated' assessment years, additions under section 153A must be based solely on seized or incriminating material. Upon perusal of the assessment discussion, the Tribunal found no evidence that the Assessing Officer had made the addition based on any such incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal found it a fit case to delete the impugned addition. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act for multiple assessment years in a consolidated manner was not in consonance with the statutory requirement, which mandates individual approval for each assessment year. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the approval exercise to be mechanical and without proper application of mind.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the instant appeal as it was a duplicate of a main case already listed. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the club subscription fee is allowable as a regular business expenditure under Section 37 of the Act. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd. which settled this issue in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction related to the share application money. Reliance was placed on various judicial precedents.