Loading ITAT cases…
873 orders · Page 9 of 18
The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to consider the documents to be furnished by the assessee and grant an opportunity of being heard before passing orders.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) and the subsequent cancellation of provisional registration were not sustainable in law. The CIT(E) was directed to grant relief accordingly.
The Tribunal noted that the required documents were submitted by the assessee as evidenced by the paper book. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal granted a further opportunity for adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the required documents were submitted by the assessee as evidenced by the paper book. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal granted a further opportunity for adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the journal entries represented an adjustment of a purchase liability owed to M/s Indwell Pharma, which in turn had taken over the liabilities of these lenders. Therefore, no new funds were introduced, and the addition under Section 68 was incorrect.
The Tribunal, having heard both parties and noting that the quantum appeal was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, decided to set aside the current issue to the file of the CIT(A) for further consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided details of cash deposits in a KCC account along with agricultural land details, which were overlooked by the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh would be just and proper for the assessment year.
The Tribunal held that once cash sales were recorded in the regular books of account and accepted by the Assessing Officer, the cash deposited from these sales could not be treated as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal found the addition unsustainable due to a lack of concrete evidence from the Revenue.
The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, stating that due to COVID-19, the appeal was not filed within time, and had shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits, as the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in preferring the appeal before the CIT(A), being satisfied with the explanation rendered by the assessee. The order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the appellate authority. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive grounds of appeal as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), being satisfied with the explanation rendered by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time, attributing the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the matter on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the appellate authority. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the substantive grounds of appeal, as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish relevant documents before the CIT(E), leading to the rejection of the application. However, the assessee now wishes to submit these documents. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was time-barred by 38 days, but condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had failed to file necessary documents before the CIT(E), which led to the rejection of the application. The assessee now wished to submit these documents. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issue to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The specific finding on whether the activities were charitable or not was not decided by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the entire amount was not unexplained. It directed the Assessing Officer to consider only Rs. 65,000/- as unexplained, representing the peak amount after considering re-deposits.
The Tribunal observed that it is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before the authority, leading the CIT(A) to decide the appeal without the assessee's evidence. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in non-compliance, whereas the appeal should ideally be decided on merits as per law. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue based on facts and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and cooperate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not satisfactorily proved or verified the cash deposits in relation to her business entries, the lower authorities could not have entirely disregarded her detailed evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to make a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs only, with the condition that this would not be treated as a precedent. This grants the assessee relief of Rs. 40.50 lakhs. Regarding the assessment under section 115BBE, the Tribunal, relying on S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Madras High Court), held that this provision is effective only for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017. Therefore, the assessee is to be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The tribunal condoned the 45-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the larger interest of justice. It was deemed appropriate to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the profit estimation by the lower authorities was not justified given the prior year's assessments. It deemed it appropriate to allow a lumpsum profit rate of 2.25% for the current year, but not as a precedent.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, holding that the cash deposits were part of the agricultural land sale consideration received by the assessee's father, given the proximity of dates and the undisputed sale deed. Consequently, the addition made by the lower authorities was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. It was clarified that if the dispute is not resolved under the scheme, the assessee can approach the Tribunal for re-institution of the appeal.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, directing them to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim and decide the issue as per facts and law, as both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders.
The Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case back to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the issue of cash deposits considering the assessee's explanation and to verify the co-ownership of the property for the purpose of Section 56(2)(vii).
The Tribunal held that the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were unsustainable. This was based on earlier decisions in the assessee's own case where quantum additions were deleted, and consequently, the penalties based on those additions could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were unsustainable. This was based on earlier decisions in the assessee's own case where quantum additions were deleted, and consequently, the penalties based on those additions could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to lack of proper and valid approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The approval was obtained from PCIT instead of PCCIT/CCIT, which was required for cases where more than three years had elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were unsustainable. This was based on earlier decisions in the assessee's own case where quantum additions were deleted, and consequently, the penalties based on those additions could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view and had verified the information provided by the assessee. The PCIT, in revision, was not satisfied and sought to take another view. The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the PCIT were not acceptable and directed the AO to redo the verification. The Tribunal quashed the revision order and held that the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the intimation under Section 154 of the Act was passed by CPC-TDS in a mechanical manner without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thereby enhancing the tax liability. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, the Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 154(3) of the Act were attracted, making it obligatory for the Revenue to provide an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal noted that the co-ordinate bench had held that charging interest under Section 201(1A) cannot be questioned on the basis of the financial condition of the assessee, but directed the AO to give the appellant an opportunity to explain the computation of interest. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the matter be remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee company. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the exchange fluctuation loss arising on revaluation of business advances at the year-end is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, as well as decisions in the assessee's own case for prior years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases and had rebutted the AO's allegations. The Revenue failed to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the conveyance deed itself mentioned 'NIL' consideration paid by the vendee, as verified by the sub-registrar. The bank statements did not show any funds arranged by the wife, and the transaction seemed to be a sham, failing a prudent approach by the tax authorities.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had examined the issue in the correct perspective and rightly deleted the additions made by the AO. The reasoning and findings of the CIT(A) were based on a proper appreciation of the law as expounded by judicial dicta. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had noted that the assessee had produced sufficient evidence, including stock registers, transporter confirmations, and proof of delivery, to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) also observed that the AO had failed to controvert this evidence or provide any new material. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the assessee had discharged its initial onus and that the AO had failed to discharge the subsequent onus to disprove the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order in violation of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause for the delay. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the case afresh on its merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention that he was an authorized dealer of Amul Milk, acting on behalf of his principal for a fixed commission, was not appreciated in the right perspective by the lower authorities. The assessee had explained the modus operandi of his business, implying he was providing services and acting solely on behalf of his principal. The CIT(A) had discarded this explanation without valid reasons. The Tribunal found that a coordinate bench in the case of Mohammad Daud vs. ITO Ward -58(1) had deleted the penalty under similar circumstances. Therefore, in view of the facts, circumstances, and the legal position, the penalty levied under Section 271B and upheld by the CIT(A)/NFAC was quashed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without due application of mind and lacked proper consideration of the grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal found that crucial issues, such as the necessity of a DVO report and the validity of notices, were not adequately addressed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order does not survive and is liable to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the fact that the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the quantum proceedings, which formed the basis for levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), had been deleted by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's appeal for the same assessment year. Since the primary additions were no longer valid, the penalty levied on account of those additions could not be sustained. The Tribunal found that the Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the appeal of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed. The ground raised by the assessee was allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the onus to explain cash deposits to the extent of cash withdrawals from bank accounts (Rs. 9,08,500/-). The remaining deficit of Rs. 3,48,180/- was partially explained by past savings and an earlier credit of Rs. 1,00,000/-, leaving Rs. 2,48,180/- as unexplained.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's sole substantive ground of appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's primary grievance was being treated as an 'assessee in default' for failing to deduct TDS on External Development Charges (EDC) paid to HUDA. The Tribunal found that the jurisdictional High Court in Puri Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 444 (Del.) had already decided this issue against the assessee, holding that such payments of EDC do attract TDS deduction under Chapter XVII of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument and rejected the ground. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the other grounds raised by the assessee, such as those related to section 191, section 40(a)(ia), section 148, and section 151, as the primary substantive issue was decided against the assessee based on the High Court's precedent. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value and part of the enhanced compensation, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF. The PCIT's order, based solely on an audit objection and overlooking Supreme Court precedents, was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was obtained from an incorrect authority, violating Section 151(ii) of the Act, as it applied to cases where more than three years had elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the Revenue's contentions supporting the reopening were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have considered the evidence filed for the first time or remanded the case. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 22 lakhs in cash during the financial year, and the deposit of Rs. 14.28 lakhs was a part of these withdrawals. Therefore, the addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of investment, including contributions from his proprietorship and a loan from a third party. The addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business activity was not in dispute and held that the impugned cash deposits prima facie represented business turnover. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess this turnover at the presumptive rate of 8%.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order and referred the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The Tribunal concurred with this action, directing the AO to provide opportunities and consider submissions.
The Tribunal held that payments made for professional legal services rendered entirely outside India to non-residents are not chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 arises for such payments.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were covered under the respective Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements and were not liable for TDS deduction. The penalty imposed for concealment of income was quashed as it was based on a difference of opinion between the AO and the Assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. It found no merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that the CIT(A) had already considered the factual position finalized by the Interim Board for Settlement-VII, which remained unrebutted by the assessee. The tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,80,820/- representing the assessee's 1/4th share of the unexplained jewellery.