Loading ITAT cases…
882 orders · Page 7 of 18
The Tribunal directed the AO to retain the GP ratio of 0.6% as declared by the assessee for AY 2014-15, following the decision for AY 2013-14. Regarding the cash credit, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to gifts from Shimla Devi, finding sufficient source of funds, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.
The Tribunal admitted the assessee's petition under Rule 27, holding that the assessee could raise grounds decided against them if they had a bearing on the CIT(A)'s final decision. The Tribunal found the Revenue's reliance on case laws distinguishable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities fall within the meaning of 'charitable' under Section 2(15) and are not subject to the proviso, entitling them to exemption. The amounts transferred to the infrastructure development fund were also held to be not taxable in the assessee's hands as they were custodian of these funds.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's socio-economic status and the peculiar facts. It restricted the addition to Rs.6,00,000/-, providing a relief of Rs.7,00,000/-, and stipulated that this decision would not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that since the order passed under Section 263, which directed the AO to proceed with the penalty, was quashed by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the AO had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The tribunal held that mere family involvement or related entities do not automatically render a transaction a "colourable device." It noted that the AO did not dispute the adjustment of sale consideration via book entry, and that the onus was on the Revenue to prove the transaction was not real. Suspicion, however strong, cannot be a substitute for evidence. Therefore, the transaction was deemed genuine.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2004-05, finding the assessee's explanation to be reasonable and bona fide. The appeal was admitted for hearing, and the grounds of appeal were to be considered.
The Tribunal emphasized that recording reasons is an absolute necessity before initiating a notice under Section 148. Since no reasons for reopening were produced, it was concluded that none were actually recorded. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were deemed to lack jurisdiction and were quashed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, having considered the submissions from both parties, accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the compensation and interest received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land are exempt from tax under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the unexplained credit addition.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2 crores under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 68 applies to any sum found credited in the books of account, and it does not distinguish between cash or cheque entries, nor does it require the cheque to be encashed. The two essential conditions for Section 68 are: (i) a credit entry in the assessee's books, and (ii) either no explanation or an unsatisfactory explanation by the assessee. Both conditions were met in this case. The assessee received a cheque and made a corresponding book entry, but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source and genuineness of the credit, especially given the poor financial standing of the lender. The Tribunal distinguished the assessee's reliance on cases like CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. and Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, stating they were not applicable to situations where a legal fiction creates a deemed income under Section 68. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to be vague and lacking tangible material. The Tribunal concluded that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, making the entire assessment proceedings invalid. The court quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153A read with Section 144 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient and genuine causes for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), including initiation of criminal cases, judicial custody, business closure, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps and the new virtual hearing mechanism could not be ruled out, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal directed the AO to exclude certain transactions (Sl. Nos. 11 & 14 related to BMW Z4 + PY & BMW Z24) from the purview of GP estimation on cash sales, as they were incapable of generating cash. It further reduced the estimated gross profit percentage on unaccounted cash sales from 10% to 8% for all relevant assessment years (2015-16 to 2019-20).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient and genuine causes for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), including initiation of criminal cases, judicial custody, business closure, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are void-ab-initio and a jurisdictional defect, not a procedural irregularity. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the AO was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the disputed issues under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme application failed.
The Tribunal held that losses arising from employee fraud or embezzlement should be allowed as a deduction in the year of discovery, provided they are incidental to the business. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court decisions and CBDT circulars supporting this view.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, noting its relevance and the circumstances preventing its earlier production. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation and decided to give them an opportunity to file the required documents. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient and genuine causes for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), including initiation of criminal cases, judicial custody, business closure, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely on the basis of disallowance of expenditure, especially when the disallowance is made on an estimation basis or ad hoc basis without a definite finding of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified as the cash deposits represented business sales already accounted for in the profit and loss account. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted these additions, considering the real income and accounting principles.
The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee, but the CIT(E)'s order was silent on the manner of service of notice and opportunities provided. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee an opportunity to file relevant documents and decide afresh.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient and genuine causes for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), including initiation of criminal cases, judicial custody, business closure, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was pursuing a remedy under the VSVS Scheme and that the matter was pending for rectification. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if the settlement fails.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Act. It affirmed that if registration is granted and assessment proceedings are pending for a preceding assessment year with consistent objectives and activities, benefits of Sections 11 and 12 apply. Since the assessee's registration was granted on 14.10.2019 and proceedings u/s 143(1) for AY 2019-20 were pending, the assessee was eligible for the benefits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without acknowledging the pending rectification application or the assessee's request for adjournment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the assessment order, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not served with notices of hearing and was not given adequate opportunity of hearing. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessing authority needs to ensure there is no double addition of the salary income under the head 'business' income, as per law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition. It considered that M/s CCL International Ltd. was identified as a penny stock used for accommodation entries, and the assessee's claim of LTCG exemption was not justifiable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2004-05, accepting the assessee's explanation of reasonable cause due to the previous counsel's actions. However, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction and reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on the sole reason of cash deposits, but the assessment order did not reflect any additions related to this reason. The reopening was quashed citing relevant case laws.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment were vague and indicated a total non-application of mind. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. If the assessee still fails to represent her case or provide evidence, the CIT(A) can decide the issue on merits.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with virtual hearings and noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal summarily based on non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, despite the issue being non-filing of the return. As the notice from CIT(A) was allegedly not received, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after giving adequate notice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not attend the virtual hearing due to technical glitches and the CIT(A) did not provide a second opportunity. The Tribunal held that one more opportunity should have been provided and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a personal video conferencing opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted all necessary documents and evidences, both to the lower authorities and in the paper book. It noted that the trust was registered late from 23.03.2017 under Section 12AA and Section 80G, with no change in its objects or activities.
The Tribunal held that losses arising from employee embezzlement or negligence are allowable as deductions in the year they are discovered, provided they are incidental to the business. The case law cited supports allowing such losses when the employer realizes recovery is impossible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it not substantial. The impugned order was set aside, and the issues were remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh hearing and adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was observed that the CIT(E)'s order did not address the mode of service of notices. Therefore, the tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to file the required documents and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal without considering the written submissions of the assessee, and thus, it was an appropriate case to give the assessee an opportunity to contest on merits.
The Tribunal held that units of equity-oriented mutual funds are akin to equity shares and thus taxable under Article 13(3A) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, contrary to the assessee's claim of exemption under Article 13(4). However, it directed the AO to verify if any gains arose from mutual funds acquired before April 1, 2017, which would be exempt.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, as it was a common approval for numerous cases. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2004-05, finding the assessee's explanation to be reasonable and bona fide. The appeal was admitted for hearing, and the grounds of appeal were to be considered.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. It was held that due to communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the matter should be set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal deleted the addition related to cash deposits, finding that the assessee had sufficient sources from his father's account (Rs. 10,00,000/-) and his own bank account (Rs. 7,88,100/-). For the salary income, the original addition of Rs. 1,88,349/- was confirmed based on Form 26AS entries, while the CIT(A)'s enhancement action was reversed.