Loading ITAT cases…
873 orders · Page 4 of 18
The Tribunal held that expenditure on trademark/copyright registration is capital in nature and eligible for depreciation. However, it allowed marketing expenses as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify and allow set-off of losses from the preceding year if allowable.
The Tribunal held that the computation of the block period under Sections 153C and 153A, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., aligns with the legislative intent. The notices issued to the assessee were quashed by the High Court in a related case.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act was vitiated due to a vague and cryptic satisfaction note, similar to previous cases. The assessment order was quashed on this legal ground, making the other grounds redundant.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were invalid as they were not sanctioned by the appropriate authority as required by the amended Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the reopening proceedings and the subsequent assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing identity and demonstrating genuineness of transactions, with no additions made for similar loans in other years. Furthermore, the addition concerning donation was found unsustainable as it was part of the books and no show-cause notice was issued for it, violating natural justice. The sanction for reopening for AY 2015-16 was also found to be invalid due to jurisdictional error.
The Tribunal held that no penalty could survive on estimated income, as there cannot be partial concealment or non-concealment. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the legal ground concerning the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the notice under section 148A(b) was issued on 18.05.2022 and the order under section 148A(d) on 28.07.2022 for AY 2016-17. Since more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval for issuing the notice under section 148 should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, as per section 151(ii) of the Act. However, the approval was obtained only from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, which was not the competent authority. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Communist Party of India (Maxist) V. CIT(Ex) and the Co-ordinate Bench in Sampark Management Consultancy LLP v. DCIT, which held that such approval is not sustainable under law. Consequently, the assessment order dated 20.04.2023 was quashed. The other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and were kept open for adjudication. The operative direction was to allow the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act was vitiated due to a vague and cryptic satisfaction note, similar to previous cases. The assessment order was quashed on this legal ground, making the other grounds redundant.
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 148 were invalid because the approval for reassessment was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the commission payments were genuine and supported by evidence. It also held that the interest disallowance was unjustified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover its investments.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. It also noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act was vitiated due to a vague and cryptic satisfaction note, similar to previous cases. The assessment order was quashed on this legal ground, making the other grounds redundant.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal considered the AO's additions regarding unexplained expenditure and investments in construction. The CIT(A) had restricted additions on expenditure and deleted additions on construction, finding no evidence of such construction. The tribunal's decision on these points is detailed in the judgment.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). This failure was considered a fatal flaw, as per the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowances of interest, manufacturing expenses, and administrative/selling expenses were not substantiated by contrary facts. The CIT(A)'s deletion of interest and manufacturing expenses was upheld, and the disallowance of administrative and selling expenses was partly allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's grievances were not properly adjudicated by the CIT(A) as the assessee had not filed submissions before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly considered judicial precedents regarding depreciation not being a double deduction for charitable institutions and set aside the issue to the AO for examination. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unsecured loans, cessation of liability, and car expenses, finding the AO's reliance on investigation reports to be overstretched.
The Tribunal noted that substantial additions in the case of Sh. Atul Tyagi were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and no further appeal was preferred by him, meaning those additions had reached finality. Consequently, the present appeal challenging the protective additions did not survive.
The Tribunal held that the AO's ad-hoc disallowance of 80% was not justified. The CIT(A) had rightly reduced the disallowance to 20%, but even this was found to be unsustainable as the expenditure was supported by employee declarations and an internal approval system.
The Tribunal, referring to various High Court decisions and noting the absence of guidance from the jurisdictional High Court, adopted the view favoring the assessee. The Tribunal reversed the action of the lower authorities in assessing interest on enhanced compensation.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the time limit after receiving the assessment order. The NFAC was directed to admit the appeal and adjudicate it afresh. The penalty proceedings were also restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted all relevant reconciliation statements and supporting documents, which the lower authorities failed to consider. The difference in turnover was due to different computation mechanisms under Service Tax and Income Tax laws.
The Tribunal held that as per the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., employee's contributions deducted from salary and held in trust are deemed income under Section 2(24)(x) and their deductibility under Section 36(1)(va) is conditional upon deposit on or before the due date. Therefore, the disallowance was justified.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. It also noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict unexplained expenditure additions to 12% of the transactions, aligning with a previous year's ruling. Other grounds raised by both the Revenue and the assessee were also dealt with based on the facts and applicable legal precedents.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences filed by the assessee required factual verification. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including invoices, e-way bills, and bank statements, to substantiate the purchases. The revenue failed to provide any evidence to disprove the genuineness of the purchases. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidences filed by the assessee required factual verification. Therefore, the issue was restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 80AC of the Act, which bars deductions under certain heads, was introduced only from 01.04.2018. Prior to that, there was no bar to claiming deductions under Section 80C if a return was furnished, which the assessee had done.
The Tribunal held that the unsecured loan addition under Section 68 was justified due to the lack of convincing explanation regarding the source of funds. However, the addition under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned. The addition under Section 36(1)(iii) was affirmed as the assessee failed to establish commercial expediency for advancing interest-free loans to sister concerns.
The Tribunal found that the factual position regarding the cash deposit amount was incorrect as per the bank statement. The matter was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present fresh grounds and evidence.
The Tribunal held that deposit in a current account with a scheduled bank is a valid mode of investment under Section 11(5)(iii) of the Act. However, it remanded the matter to verify details regarding a cheque amount to determine if the assessee fully complied with the provisions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the cash deposits arose from agricultural activities and offered to produce evidence. However, the lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal without appreciating these submissions. The Tribunal restored the appeal for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of account and that sales during festive seasons were on the higher side. There was no evidence against the purchases shown by the assessee. The Tribunal also found no error in the CIT(A) admitting additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition related to Cloister Realtors Pvt. Ltd. as sufficient evidence was provided to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. However, regarding UV Credit Solutions, since additional evidence regarding the change of name and existence of the creditor was submitted, the issue was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding that the NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without independent findings, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all supporting documents for the claimed business expenses, and the books of account were not rejected by the revenue. Therefore, no business expenditure could be disallowed.
The Tribunal noted that substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Prateek Bansal, whose case was remanded for denovo assessment. Therefore, the present appeal also needs to be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after determining the correct person for substantive addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the file of the NFAC for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case effectively.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's grievances were not properly adjudicated by the CIT(A) as the assessee had not filed submissions before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if the very basis for forming the belief for reassessment does not result in any addition in the reassessment order, then the entire reassessment proceedings would be void ab initio. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the identity and creditworthiness of the suppliers, especially since the purchases were treated as genuine and the trading results were accepted. Therefore, Section 68 could not be invoked for the outstanding balances.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was a double addition as the cash sales were already part of the turnover accepted by the AO. The assessee had also provided sufficient evidence to prove the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's grievances were not properly adjudicated by the CIT(A) as the assessee had not filed submissions before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict unexplained expenditure additions to 12% of the transactions, aligning with a previous year's ruling. The tribunal also addressed issues related to undisclosed investments and capital gains, considering various grounds raised by both the Revenue and the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict additions related to unexplained expenditure to 12% of the transactions, aligning with a previous year's ruling. However, the Tribunal's decision on other grounds, particularly regarding the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) based on incriminating documents and sale agreements, is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict unexplained expenditure additions to 12% of the transactions, aligning with a previous year's ruling. It also rejected the Revenue's attempt to revive a deleted addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- related to undisclosed investment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It noted that SEBI's subsequent investigation cleared the company and revoked the interim orders, finding no adverse evidence of manipulation. The AO had also failed to conduct independent inquiries.
The Tribunal held that once the income is assessed in an earlier assessment year, the corresponding TDS benefit deducted subsequently should not be denied. The assessing authority was directed to consider the TDS claim as per law.