Loading ITAT cases…
891 orders · Page 16 of 18
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice u/s 148 and the assessment order. While most of the addition was deleted, 8% of the export turnover was sustained as profit. Penalties were dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice u/s 148 and the assessment order. While most of the addition was deleted, 8% of the export turnover was sustained as profit. Penalties were dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits. Following precedent, it set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals afresh after affording the Assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the facts of the assessee's case were similar to that of a co-owner, where a similar distance certificate was accepted by the AO. The Tribunal noted that there cannot be two different treatments for the same transaction and decided to follow the coordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year had already deleted the disallowance of depreciation. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the basis for the penalty order no longer survived and deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that signing an assessment order is a mandatory requirement, not a mere procedural formality. Relying on CBDT instructions and precedents, it ruled that an unsigned assessment order is nonest and invalid, and such a defect cannot be cured under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the unsigned assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was less than Rs. 60 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. The dismissal was with liberty to move for restoration if the tax effect exceeds the threshold.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the cash deposits of Rs. 2,43,784/-, the Tribunal inferred, considering the assessee's socio-economic circumstances, that she could have been carrying cash representing family savings, although not satisfactorily proved. The Tribunal granted partial relief by accepting the assessee's argument to the extent of Rs. 93,784/-, thus confirming an addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. For the assessment under section 115BBE, the Tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court decision in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, held that this provision applies only to transactions done on or after 01.04.2017. Therefore, the assessee was directed to be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act. The ratio is that while unexplained cash deposits can be partly accepted based on socio-economic circumstances, the applicability of section 115BBE is prospective from 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the virtual hearing mechanism. To ensure justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny, making additions not covered by the notice. This rendered the assessment proceedings void ab initio.
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, the Tribunal held that technicalities must yield to the cause of substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the taxpayer proving their case.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously dismissed similar appeals filed by the Revenue concerning the same assessee for earlier assessment years, as they were deemed not maintainable due to the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). Following this precedent and the fact that the assessee was also undergoing insolvency proceedings, the present appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte order might be due to communication gaps, especially with the new faceless hearings system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, particularly with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the assessee's appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The specific additions made by the lower authorities and the quantum of dispute were not detailed in the judgment.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of validity of assessments under Section 153A, especially when no incriminating material is found for unabated years, was settled by the Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found a lack of clarity in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding whether additions were based on seized material.
The Tribunal acknowledged the potential for communication difficulties with virtual hearing mechanisms. In the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee three effective opportunities to be heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the grounds raised for condonation of delay required specific indulgence due to the assessee's bureaucratic setup and dependence on experts. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the NFAC for a fresh hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps might have occurred, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps might have occurred, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of validity of assessments under Section 153A, especially when no incriminating material is found for unabated years, was settled by the Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found a lack of clarity in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding whether additions were based on seized material.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of validity of assessments under Section 153A, especially when no incriminating material is found for unabated years, was settled by the Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found a lack of clarity in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding whether additions were based on seized material.
The Tribunal held that disallowing the assessee's claim for ESI/PF deduction under section 143(1) processing was not appropriate as it involved a debatable issue.
The Tribunal held that no such disallowance could be made under section 143(1) processing, finding merit in the assessee's legal argument that the issue involved was highly debatable. The decision followed the case law Raj Kumar Bothra Vs. DCIT.
The Tribunal held that once cash deposits are treated as turnover and accounted for in the books of accounts, they cannot be considered as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) that deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash as sales proceeds from the business.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, there was a possibility of communication gaps, especially with the introduction of the faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to adjudicate the matter afresh within three effective opportunities. The assessee was put on notice that they would have to plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility in the consequential proceedings. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer or affirmed by the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of validity of assessments under Section 153A, especially when no incriminating material is found for unabated years, was settled by the Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found a lack of clarity in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding whether additions were based on seized material.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the new virtual hearing mechanism. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three effective opportunities to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the beneficial owner of the interest income, as it was merely a conduit company designed to avail treaty benefits. Consequently, the DTAA benefits were disallowed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not file an appeal against the original assessment order, the current appeal challenging the rectification order would be confined to a limited scope. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh against the original assessment.
The Tribunal held that the common approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for three assessees across seven assessment years (2013-14 to 2019-20) under Section 153D of the Act was invalid. Such a combined approval vitiated the entire assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal observed that the assessee, engaged in gold ornament trading, had provided detailed replies and necessary documents to the AO, including an analysis of cash sales and stock details, and VAT returns. The AO acknowledged these submissions but failed to unearth any inconsistencies or discrepancies. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had meticulously examined the details, including monthly cash sales and bank deposits reconciled with the cash book, and found that the assessee had a sufficient opening cash balance and substantial cash sales on November 8, 2016, to account for the deposits. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO had not provided proper reasoning or shown any inconsistencies to justify the addition, essentially turning a blind eye to the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was deemed baseless and unsubstantiated, and its deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153C proceedings were valid and not time-barred, considering the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The assessee's contention of delay was found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to provide details for sundry creditors and the non-disallowance of TDS, despite disallowing it in the computation, indicated furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty was reversed.
The Tribunal held that the common approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for three assessees across seven assessment years (2013-14 to 2019-20) under Section 153D of the Act was invalid. Such a combined approval vitiated the entire assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the trail of alleged unaccounted receipts and expenditure by M/s. SBTL on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal found no clarity on the payers/clients and noted that most customers had cancelled their bookings.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(E)'s order was silent on the manner of service of notices, it was appropriate to give the assessee an opportunity to file the required documents. The issue was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the NFAC, acknowledging the exceptional circumstances presented by the assessee, including a potential oversight by the counsel.
The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lachmandas Mathuradas v. CIT, held that the interest paid on delayed remittance of GST and VAT is compensatory in nature and therefore allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal found that the IEX rates were not comparable due to the unpredictable and short-term nature of transactions on the platform. It also considered SEB tariffs as a reasonable basis for determining ALP, referencing a Supreme Court decision on the market value of electricity.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court had directed that the appeal be entertained on merits without raising any objection regarding limitation. The CIT(A) was required to decide the case on merit after condoning the delay. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh decision on merit.
The tribunal held that the assessee's activities were genuinely charitable, lacked a profit motive, and aligned with CSR objectives. It found that incidental income was reinvested and did not negate the charitable status, relying on Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the CIT(E) was directed to grant the registration.
The tribunal held that the assessee's activities were genuinely charitable, lacked a profit motive, and aligned with CSR objectives. It found that incidental income was reinvested and did not negate the charitable status, relying on Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the CIT(E) was directed to grant the registration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not err in deleting the addition. The Assessee provided a certificate and MOU to prove they were a Banking Corresponding Agent for the bank, and the deposits were on behalf of the bank. The bank's non-response to a notice under Section 133(6) was not sufficient grounds to make the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's inability to produce documents was due to ailments and surgeries. The CIT(A) had enhanced the addition and refused to admit additional evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal was a duplication of an earlier appeal, which had already been decided. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the current appeal.
The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of CSR expenses, stating that no specific provision exists in Section 115JB for such adjustments. The disallowance of upfront fees was remanded to the AO for verification of the claim that it was not claimed in the current year.
The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decisions in the assessee's own cases for similar issues. For most grounds, the additions were deleted, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. However, for the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii), the matter was partly allowed with a direction to the AO for quantification.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on presumptions and conjecture, as there was no concrete material or corroborative evidence to link the assessee with the transactions in the 'Hazir Johri' software. The seized material belonged to the searched entity (JBL), not the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the unaccounted turnover was rational and based on scientific views from seized materials and comparable cases. The AO's estimation of net profit at 75% was not considered probable.