Loading ITAT cases…
873 orders · Page 11 of 18
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the investor. The assessment order for M/s. Blue Bell Finance Ltd. for the same assessment year accepted its income, thereby establishing its identity. No incriminating material directly linked the assessee to paying unaccounted cash for accommodation entries. The addition under Section 68 was deleted, and the addition for commission expenses was also found unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the seven residential units purchased by the assessee on the same floor, within the same complex, could be construed as a single residential house for the purpose of Section 54/54F deduction. The Tribunal relied on various High Court decisions that interpreted 'a residential house' to mean 'one residential house'.
On the issue of R&D expenditure (Grounds 1 to 1.2 for AY 2015-16 and Grounds 1 to 1.2 for AY 2016-17), the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 35(2AB) requires approval of the R&D facility by the prescribed authority, but it does not mandate that the prescribed authority must verify and certify the quantum of capital and revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also noted that the amended Rule 6(7A), relied upon by the AO, was effective from AY 2017-18 and thus wrongly applied to the assessment year under appeal. The Tribunal followed various precedents cited by the assessee. The ratio is that the approval of the R&D facility by DSIR is sufficient for claiming weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB), and the quantum of expenditure certified by DSIR is not a prerequisite for allowing the deduction, provided the expenditure is otherwise verifiable and incurred for the approved facility. The disallowance of INR 3,49,56,000 for AY 2015-16 and INR 6,23,00,000 for AY 2016-17 was deleted. On the issue of DDT (Grounds 2 to 2.1 for AY 2015-16 and Grounds 2 to 2.1 for AY 2016-17), the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Special Bench in DCIT vs Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. The AO's action in charging DDT at 19.994% was upheld. On the issue of interest under Section 234C (Ground 3 for AY 2015-16), the Tribunal allowed the ground for statistical purposes, directing the AO to re-work the interest on the income declared by the assessee in the return of income filed. The ratio is that interest under Section 234C should be computed on the income declared in the return. On the issue of training expenses (Ground raised by Revenue for AY 2015-16), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal followed the order of a Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.5734/Del/2016, which held that training expenses are business expediency and revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1), and cannot be treated as deferred revenue or capital expenditure. The jurisdictional High Court had also upheld the Tribunal's order. The ratio is that training expenses incurred for drivers and technicians are revenue expenditure and not deferred revenue expenditure. Operative directions: Deletion of disallowance for R&D expenses, interest under Section 234C re-worked, and dismissal of Revenue's appeal on training expenses.
The Tribunal acknowledged potential communication gaps in virtual hearings and a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2006-07, the additions made by the AO were unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the search was conducted on October 20, 2008, and the assessment year 2006-07 was an unabated assessment year. In such cases, additions can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. The AO's reasons for the additions did not refer to any such material. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. to support this view. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of all additions was upheld. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal found that the notice u/s 143(2) was indeed issued beyond the statutory time limit. The assessment records confirmed that the notice was dated October 22, 2010, whereas the limitation period expired on September 30, 2010. The Tribunal held that the mandatory requirement of issuing a notice u/s 143(2) within the stipulated time was not met. Relying on the decisions in Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. and CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal, the Tribunal concluded that the AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order for AY 2009-10 was quashed. As a result, the penalty levied u/s 271AAA for AY 2009-10 was also held to be unsustainable, as the substratum for the penalty had eroded. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeals by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's decision was made ex-parte without substantive adjudication. 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the possibility of communication gaps and ineffective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, particularly in unabated assessment years where no incriminating material was found during the search. Additions based on 'dumb documents' or mere presumptions were also dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16, are to be dropped as they fall outside the completion period prescribed under TOLA, 2020. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was invalid.
The Tribunal, while rejecting the assessee's explanation for keeping cash for a long period, partly restricted the addition from Rs. 42,00,000/- to Rs. 32,00,000/- due to the assessee's socio-economic status. It further held that Section 115BBE is applicable only for transactions on or after 01.04.2017, directing the assessee to be assessed under normal provisions.
The Tribunal held that claiming deduction under the wrong column is a technical default and not a reason to deny the legitimate claim. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowing the claim.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in regular business and the cash deposits prima facie represented business turnover. A lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- was considered appropriate in the interest of justice, with a rider that it would not be treated as precedent. It was also held that Section 115BBE applied only to transactions after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal noted that the cash withdrawal explained the source of the deposits, although not fully reconciled. It was deemed appropriate to make a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000. The Tribunal also ruled that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that for the addition of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68, the AO's reasons did not refer to any incriminating material. It reiterated the principle that in a year of completed assessment on the date of search, no addition can be made if no incriminating material is found, citing PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (SC). Therefore, the addition was unsustainable, and the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld. Regarding the assessment order for AY 2009-10, the Tribunal found that the notice under Section 143(2) was indeed issued beyond the statutory time limit of 30.09.2010, with the actual notice on record being dated 22.12.2010. It was held that Section 292BB would not apply as the assessee had raised objections prior to assessment completion. Citing the Delhi High Court in Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. and the Supreme Court in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal, the Tribunal concluded that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction, rendering the assessment order liable to be quashed. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271AAA for AY 2009-10 was also held to be unsustainable as its substratum had eroded. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's appeals.
The Tribunal found that while the purchases were treated as bogus, the corresponding sales were not doubted. The assessee also failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases. Consequently, the Tribunal disallowed the impugned purchases at a lump sum rate of 10%, with a rider that it would not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, particularly in unabated assessment years where no incriminating material was found during the search. Additions based on 'dumb documents' or mere presumptions were also dismissed.
On the issue of R&D expenditure (Grounds 1 to 1.2 for AY 2015-16 and Grounds 1 to 1.2 for AY 2016-17), the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 35(2AB) requires approval of the R&D facility by the prescribed authority, but it does not mandate that the prescribed authority must verify and certify the quantum of capital and revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also noted that the amended Rule 6(7A), relied upon by the AO, was effective from AY 2017-18 and thus wrongly applied to the assessment year under appeal. The Tribunal followed various precedents cited by the assessee. The ratio is that the approval of the R&D facility by DSIR is sufficient for claiming weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB), and the quantum of expenditure certified by DSIR is not a prerequisite for allowing the deduction, provided the expenditure is otherwise verifiable and incurred for the approved facility. The disallowance of INR 3,49,56,000 for AY 2015-16 and INR 6,23,00,000 for AY 2016-17 was deleted. On the issue of DDT (Grounds 2 to 2.1 for AY 2015-16 and Grounds 2 to 2.1 for AY 2016-17), the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Special Bench in DCIT vs Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. The AO's action in charging DDT at 19.994% was upheld. On the issue of interest under Section 234C (Ground 3 for AY 2015-16), the Tribunal allowed the ground for statistical purposes, directing the AO to re-work the interest on the income declared by the assessee in the return of income filed. The ratio is that interest under Section 234C should be computed on the income declared in the return. On the issue of training expenses (Ground raised by Revenue for AY 2015-16), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal followed the order of a Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.5734/Del/2016, which held that training expenses are business expediency and revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1), and cannot be treated as deferred revenue or capital expenditure. The jurisdictional High Court had also upheld the Tribunal's order. The ratio is that training expenses incurred for drivers and technicians are revenue expenditure and not deferred revenue expenditure. Operative directions: Deletion of disallowance for R&D expenses, interest under Section 234C re-worked, and dismissal of Revenue's appeal on training expenses.
The Tribunal held that since the expenditure was for self-consumption and not paid to a third party, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not warranted. The factual position went unrebutted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that there was no merit in the impugned addition because the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was accepted by the lower authorities themselves in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, particularly in unabated assessment years where no incriminating material was found during the search. Additions based on 'dumb documents' or mere presumptions were also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the provision for sales return is a debatable issue and cannot be adjudicated under Section 154 of the Act. The assessee's method of accounting, providing for potential losses based on historical data, is in consonance with well-settled accounting principles.
The Tribunal observed that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders, and the assessee alleged non-receipt of notices. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee a fair opportunity to present its case and substantiate its claims, and to decide the issue as per fact and law.
The Tribunal acknowledged potential communication gaps in virtual hearings and a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's explicit request and application for withdrawal, which was placed on record. The Tribunal's decision was to allow the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific issue was left undecided, as the primary matter before the Tribunal was the assessee's request for withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, a denovo assessment was required. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, which held that the word 'own' in Section 54F implies full and whole ownership, and shared interest in a property does not constitute absolute ownership. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not the absolute owner of the residential flat in Goa, as it was jointly owned with his wife and later his share was transferred to his daughter. Even if considered a deemed owner under Section 27(1), he remained a co-owner, not an absolute owner. Therefore, the exemption under Section 54F could not be denied. Regarding the indexed cost of acquisition of shares, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had considered detailed ledger accounts and verified the investments and transfer of shares. As this was a factual issue, the Tribunal did not interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not establish any defect in the records or reject the books of account. The AO also failed to conduct an inquiry to prove the non-genuineness of the expenses. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT vs. R.G. Buildwell Engineers Ltd., where similar disallowances based on insufficient evidence were rejected, the Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the sum received from M/s S. R. Credit Pvt. Ltd. was a refund of the assessee's deposit. The AO had not doubted the identity or genuineness of the transaction, only the creditworthiness of M/s S. R. Credit Pvt. Ltd., which the Tribunal found was sufficiently explained by the evidence.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, a denovo assessment was required. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the payment of EDC charges is contractual in nature and attracts TDS deduction under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal concurred with the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the payment of EDC charges is contractual in nature and attracts TDS deduction under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal concurred with the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the major portion of the addition (Rs. 1,05,30,500/-), accepting the source as explained cash in hand. However, it sustained a lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs due to the assessee's failure to satisfactorily prove the continuity of cash in hand from 01.04.2016 to the deposit dates. The Tribunal also clarified that Section 115BBE applies to transactions on or after 01.04.2017, and the sustained addition should be assessed under normal provisions.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new system of faceless hearings. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that neither party fully succeeded in their arguments. While the assessees provided explanations for business sales, these were not sufficiently reconciled with the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, allowed lump sum additions of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs appeal-wise, not to be treated as precedent.
The Tribunal found that neither party fully succeeded in their arguments. While the assessees provided explanations for business sales, these were not sufficiently reconciled with the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, allowed lump sum additions of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs appeal-wise, not to be treated as precedent.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
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 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 revenue was not justified in taxing the entire gross receipts without giving credit for the application of income. The income element is to be taxed after reducing expenses. The assessee had applied more than its gross receipts, resulting in a deficit eligible for carry forward.
The Tribunal held that the interest component of land acquisition compensation is part of the enhanced compensation and is not taxable as income from other sources. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions affirming this position.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. It found no merit in the assessee's arguments that the agreement was not proved or that she was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the vendor. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities' findings were based on the recitals in the agreement, which indicated a cheque payment followed by an on-money component. The Tribunal observed that these findings had not been successfully rebutted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the impugned addition and confirmed it in its entirety. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings and orders passed in the name of a deceased person, without substituting the legal representatives, are without jurisdiction and thus quashed. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to reasonable cause.
The Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 2,21,174/- related to credit card payments was sufficiently explained by the assessee's pension and accumulated savings, and directed its deletion. For the additions of Rs. 12,00,000/- (mutual funds) and Rs. 4119/- (interest income), the Tribunal remitted the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the source and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It directed the AO to verify the genuineness of the receipts and cash deposits, and the correctness of the exemption claim under Section 10(23AA), providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions and remitted the issues back to the NFAC. The NFAC was directed to decide the issues afresh on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order violated the principle of natural justice by not affording adequate opportunity. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide them afresh after giving the assessee a proper hearing.