Loading ITAT cases…
873 orders · Page 17 of 18
The Tribunal held that since the section 153C notice was issued in 2021, the assessment years were unabated. The Revenue's contentions supporting the impugned assessments lacked merit, and the assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the case files. The appeals were filed by both the assessee and the department against the orders of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses, when adjusted below the line in the Profit & Loss account, are part of the net profit and should be considered for MAT computation. The Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal noted the non-compliance but considered the entirety of facts and the interest of justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the impugned order of the PCIT. The Tribunal adopted the reasoning from its own recent decision in Pawan Kumar Vs. PCIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 61 (Del.-Trib.). The Tribunal held that the decision of the Hon'ble P&H High Court in Mahender Pal Narang (supra) was rendered in peculiar facts and circumstances and was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Hari Singh (2018), which affirmed the view in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF (2009). The Tribunal noted that the dismissal of an SLP without detailed reasons does not constitute a binding precedent. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was prompted solely by an audit objection, which, as per CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills (2008), cannot lead to an inference that the AO's order is erroneous. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's order, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam HUF, represented a debatable issue where the AO accepted one of the possible views, thus precluding the revisional jurisdiction of the PCIT. The operative direction was to allow the appeal and quash the PCIT's order.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action in rectifying the order and invoking Section 69C was not in accordance with the law. Furthermore, it was held that Section 115BBE could not be invoked for charging tax at a special rate for Assessment Year 2017-18. This conclusion was based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT, which held that the provisions of Section 115BBE are applicable from Assessment Year 2018-19 onwards, not from Assessment Year 2017-18. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, which had upheld the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not sustainable as identical issues in preceding assessment years had been decided in favor of the assessee, with the CIT(A) finding the facts different from the relied-upon case and closer to another precedent. Consistency principle was applied.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C based on a third-party statement, where the assessee was denied cross-examination, is bad in law. The matter requires fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps could not be ruled out and, in the larger interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with three opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps could not be ruled out and, in the larger interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with three opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to explain the source of additional capital introduced in his balance sheet with supporting evidence from previous assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10DA, while mandatory, is a procedural aspect. Since the form was available to the AO/CPC during the processing of the revised return, denial of the deduction based solely on its delayed filing was unjustified. The issue was remitted for limited verification of quantification.
The Tribunal found part merit in the assessee's case. While some cash component from sale deeds could not be ruled out, it wasn't specifically proved. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice, to be not treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance for interest expenses on loans taken for business purposes was not justified as there was no link to the exempt income. However, a portion of the administration expenses was allowed to be disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had merely relied on borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing without independent verification or tangible material. The reopening was based on 'reason to suspect' rather than 'reason to believe', invalidating the AO's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of LTCG as the assessee had rightly computed the capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. The AO's method of adding notional interest was not prescribed by the Act. The Tribunal also ruled that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54F as they owned only one residential property at the time of transfer.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings u/s 153C based on a third-party statement, where the assessee was denied cross-examination, is bad in law. The matter requires fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and that the Senior DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 44ADA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is applicable only to residents in India and not to non-residents. Therefore, invoking this section in the present case was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that income tax is levied only on real income, not notional income, and that the AO erred in adding notional interest. Regarding the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal found that the creditor's unilateral write-off of debt did not amount to cessation of liability for the assessee, especially given conflicting confirmations from the creditor.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents were mere estimates for a project that did not materialize and were not found at the assessee's premises. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 33.86 crores was deleted, but the additional income of Rs. 35 lakhs offered by the assessee before the Settlement Commission was upheld.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. It held that the AO could not invoke Section 68 or 69A when the assessee had already declared the source of cash deposits in its books of accounts. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced complete books of accounts, including purchase and sales registers, bills, stock inventory, and cash book, which were duly audited. The AO had not pointed out any specific defects or errors in these documents, nor had he made inquiries regarding the parties to the sales. The assessee had also declared the turnover in VAT returns, which were accepted. The Tribunal noted that the AO doubted the sales solely because of higher sales in October and November 2016 compared to preceding years, without bringing any corroborative material on record to disprove the assessee's details. The AO had not invoked Section 145(3) and had made additions on a presumptive basis without establishing a link between collected evidence and the addition. The Tribunal followed its co-ordinate benches' decisions and held that when the source of cash deposits is explained in the books of accounts and no contrary material exists, Section 68 or 69A cannot be invoked. Consequently, the addition of INR 77,64,353/- was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as a single approval was given for multiple assessment years without specific consideration of each case. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that income tax is levied only on real income, not notional income, and that the AO erred in adding notional interest. Regarding the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal found that the creditor's unilateral write-off of debt did not amount to cessation of liability for the assessee, especially given conflicting confirmations from the creditor.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person without impleading the legal representative are void ab initio. Issuing notices to a dead person is illegal and invalid, and therefore, no valid jurisdiction can be assumed. Consequently, the assessment order is quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition. The assessee provided sufficient evidence, including opening cash balance, cash sales, and bank withdrawals, to explain the cash deposits. The Revenue's contention that fresh evidence was accepted without a remand report was rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the bonafide reasons provided. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed in the name of a non-existent entity and without affording a proper opportunity for making submissions.
The Tribunal held that the present appeal is a duplicate of a previously decided appeal for the same assessment year. Therefore, the second appeal against the same order is not maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's non-representation and the ex-parte nature of the previous orders, the Tribunal found it appropriate to grant a further opportunity for hearing. The issue was set aside to the AO for a reasoned order after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was invalid because the primary reason for reopening (bogus LTCG) was deleted by the CIT(A) and no addition on that basis survived. Consequently, the entire reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment should have been completed under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, not Section 143(3), as it was based on material found during a search on another entity. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of LTCG as the assessee had rightly computed the capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. The AO's method of adding notional interest was not prescribed by the Act. The Tribunal also ruled that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54F as they owned only one residential property at the time of transfer.
The Tribunal found it fit to grant the assessee a further opportunity to present its case before the Ld. CIT(E) to prevent miscarriage of justice. The matter was set aside to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the NFAC, granting the assessee one opportunity to present their case, considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and the interest of justice. The assessee is directed to appear before the NFAC.
The Tribunal noted the non-compliance but considered the entirety of facts and the interest of justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 167B, which prescribes the maximum marginal rate for AOPs with indeterminate shares, is not applicable to a public charitable trust where the shares of beneficiaries are not required to be defined. It followed previous decisions and circulars, allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty initiated in a vague manner and levied on a different charge than initially invoked is unsustainable. Therefore, the penalty order was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn as per the assessee's request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to both parties to seek restoration of the appeal if not satisfied with the outcome of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme proceedings.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order did not clearly establish proper service of notices to the assessee. Given the assessee's choice for physical notices in Form No. 35, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after ensuring due service of physical notices and providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to explain the reasons for non-compliance before the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as notices may not have been properly served. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was bonafide and condoned it, emphasizing a liberal approach to 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal also restored the issue of tax credit to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that Section 250 of the Income Tax Act does not mandate dismissal for non-prosecution and the CIT(A) is obligated to pass an order on merits. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had approached the Settlement Commission and the Settlement Commission had accepted the application. The CIT(A) had granted part relief. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the Settlement Commission's order.
The Tribunal held that while Google map distance may not be the best evidence, the assessee also failed to provide revenue or municipal records to prove the land was agricultural. The land's situation was not established to fall within the exception for agricultural land under Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017, as settled by the Madras High Court. The Revenue's appeal was found to be hit by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024 due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 60 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in the instant appeal was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, it was not maintainable in light of the CBDT Circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided details of employees and their payments, including wage registers and contributions to the Punjab Labour Welfare Fund. Previous assessment years for the same assessee did not have similar disallowances. The authorities below failed to consider these documents properly.
The Tribunal held that only Rs. 14,000 was deposited in cash by the assessee, and the remaining amount was through bank transfers. The cash deposit by the wife was also considered. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 15,14,000 was directed to be deleted.