Loading ITAT cases…
891 orders · Page 18 of 18
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's choice to settle under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, treated the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the assessee liberty to file a miscellaneous application for restoration if the Revenue does not accept Form 1.
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unrepresented and could not properly explain the transactions before the lower authorities. The documentary evidence suggests the amount was returned. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's technical objection regarding the submission of new documents for the first time at the appellate stage. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the investor companies, despite filing various documents. Mere filing of documentary evidence is not sufficient to discharge the onus under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from investments made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks, cooperative societies, and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in ITO Vs. Shri Bhairavnath Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., which considered the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. case and allowed similar claims. The reasoning was that interest income earned by a cooperative society from cooperative banks qualifies for deduction. Regarding the commission income, the Tribunal held that since the assessee is a cane cooperative institution and earned the commission in its regular business activity of marketing cane produce of its members, it is eligible for Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction on commission income was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the lead appeal and directed that the same order would follow in the other quantum and penalty appeals.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 14 of the IBC 2016 prohibit the continuation of any suits or proceedings against a corporate debtor during a moratorium period. This overrides other laws, including those related to income tax appeals.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were invalid for want of tangible relevant material. The Tribunal noted that while the Revenue contended there was information about the assessee paying on-money of Rs. 39,76,800/-, the reopening reasons lacked any discussion regarding the specific tangible material that led the Assessing Officer to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal found no reason to agree with the departmental authorities on this point. Consequently, the impugned reopening was quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect in all three appeals was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- specified by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed on account of low tax effect, with liberty granted to revive them if issues fall under exceptions in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024.
The Tribunal held that the reopening itself was not sustainable in law because the Assessing Officer did not make any addition based on the grounds for reopening, citing precedents.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect in all three appeals was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- specified by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed on account of low tax effect, with liberty granted to revive them if issues fall under exceptions in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had opted to settle the disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and paid the taxes. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that while the assessee couldn't prove regular income sources, the possibility of family cash savings for a 50-year-old couldn't be ruled out. A lumpsum relief of Rs.3,51,200/- was granted, but it was not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the first issue concerning the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 11.19 lakhs, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of savings and gifts, including marriage-related gifts, and the provision of photographs. Despite the admitted failure to reconcile these with the deposits, the Tribunal, in the larger interest of justice and considering the assessee's socio-economic status, deemed a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs to be just and proper. The addition of Rs. 11.19 lakhs was consequently deleted to the extent of Rs. 9.19 lakhs. For the second issue concerning the applicability of Section 115BBE, the Tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court's decision in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, held that Section 115BBE is effective only for transactions done on or after April 1, 2017. Therefore, the assessee was directed to be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act, implying Section 115BBE was not applicable to the transactions in question for AY 2017-18. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and did not decide all grounds of appeal in detail. To render substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 246 days in filing the appeal was due to a wrongly addressed notice by the AO and deserved to be condoned. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before both the CIT(A) and the ITAT, holding that the explanation for the delay did not suggest mala fide intent. The orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that while the entire amount could not be treated as unexplained, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2,91,150/- would be just and proper, giving relief of Rs. 10 lakhs to the assessee. This addition was not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid. The Judicial Member, speaking for the Bench, noted that the assessee's contention regarding the mechanical approval of the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act was not rebutted by the revenue. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC), the Tribunal quashed the assessment. Consequently, all other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the assessment order was set aside. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee, IT(TP)A No. 6060/Del/2024, was a duplicate appeal. The assessee's counsel acknowledged this and had no objection to the appeal being dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The specific grounds of appeal raised by the assessee concerning the merits of the assessment, transfer pricing adjustments, and disallowance of expenditure were not adjudicated upon due to the dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because notices were issued to a dissolved firm and not served on its partners. Furthermore, the additions under Section 68 were not sustainable as the amounts represented business losses (debit transactions) and not cash credits (credit transactions).
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as notices were issued to a dissolved firm without serving partners, violating Section 283(2). Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the additions under Section 68 were not permissible as the amounts represented business losses (debit transactions) and not cash credits (credit transactions).
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument in principle that the lands sold were not capital assets. The Assessing Officer was directed to conduct fresh factual verification regarding the long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 9 of the assessee's appeal, quashing the assessment order on the ground of erroneous approval accorded under Section 153D of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the approval memo dated 18.12.2019, granted by the Addl. CIT, was a single approval for seven assessment years (2011-12 to 2017-18) and was issued mechanically. It failed to mention the perusal of draft assessment orders or any application of mind. The Tribunal relied on the ratio of judgments in ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. (Orissa High Court), PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal, PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and PCIT vs. Subhash Dabas, which held that a mechanical approval under Section 153D vitiates the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted without any thoughtful process and was silent on the issues involved. Consequently, the assessment order based on this ritualistic approval was set aside. As the assessment order was quashed on this ground, the Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to address the other legal and factual contentions raised in the remaining grounds of appeal. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect in all three appeals was below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- specified by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed on account of low tax effect, with liberty granted to revive them if issues fall under exceptions in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and did not decide all issues on merit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions and for the sake of justice, decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to decide the issue on its merit after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, following catena of decisions including a coordinate bench ruling, held that interest income earned from investments of surplus funds with cooperative banks, cooperative societies, and nationalized banks is eligible for exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that relevant details could not be filed due to communication gaps and circumstances beyond control. Considering the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the grounds afresh.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO to verify the additional evidences submitted by the assessee. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was directed to cooperate with the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that for Section 41(1) to apply, there must be an actual cessation or remission of a trading liability. Merely because a debt becomes unenforceable due to the limitation period does not amount to cessation. Since the assessee continued to acknowledge the liabilities, Section 41(1) was not attracted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee faced a delay in filing the appeal due to a reasonable cause and condoned the delay. The Tribunal observed that the NFAC passed its order without hearing the assessee and that the assessee wished to present documentary evidence. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps with virtual hearings and a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's business activities and property ownership. While not commenting on merits, a lump sum addition of Rs.14,65,500/- was made to cover the nexus, not as a precedent, granting the assessee relief of Rs.30,00,000/-. Regarding Section 115BBE, it was directed to be applied only for transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide any indication or proof that the assessee had actually derived the income. No such entry was found or proven in the assessee's books. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's brother had withdrawn Rs.9,50,000/- on the date of investment, suggesting merit in the gift plea. Considering this and the lower authorities' failure to consider the assessee's socio-economic status, a lump sum addition of Rs.1,47,150/- was deemed appropriate as a reduced amount, not as a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the cash deposits prima facie represented regular business turnover and reduced the addition for unexplained money to Rs. 80,000/-. Regarding Section 115BBE, it was held to apply only to transactions after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed in the name of a deceased person. While acknowledging this, the Tribunal did not comment on the merits of the case but considered it fit to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and vitiated the entire reopening process. The decision cited was CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC). Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151 of the Act, especially since the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.