Loading ITAT cases…
908 orders · Page 5 of 19
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the Assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's grounds related to disallowance of ESI/PF claim on account of late payment, citing the decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also noted that the alleged disallowance of section 80JJAA deduction was not substantiated in the assessment or appellate orders. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments, held that for AY 2015-16, all Section 148 notices issued on or after April 01, 2021, are time-barred as they do not fall for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA. Consequently, the reassessment order passed pursuant to such a time-barred notice was declared bad in law and quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C is applicable when the source of expenditure is unexplained, not when the expenditure itself is found to be non-genuine. The assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue for not invoking Section 69C and Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, which violates the principles of natural justice. The dismissal ex parte resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The Tribunal held that the 'situs' of the Assessing Officer, which is in Mumbai, determines the territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the Delhi benches of the Tribunal do not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval for reopening by the prescribed authority was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law as there was no tangible material pertaining to the assessee considered by the lower authorities. The impugned reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of cash received from the sale of property was not based on supportive material and was already settled in the buyer's case. The addition on account of cash paid for property purchase was also not sustainable as the transaction was cancelled and the source of funds was found to be unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding a donation that was allegedly added back twice and also to verify the late deposit of employee contributions to PF & ESI. If the assessee's contentions are found correct, the respective additions are to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed period. Therefore, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the income from supervisory services should be determined based on the audited books of account, and since the audited books showed a loss, no income was taxable for that activity. The chargeability of interest under sections 234B and 234C was also addressed.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the departmental representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the income from supervisory services should be determined based on the audited books of account, and since the audited books showed a loss, no income was taxable for that activity. The chargeability of interest under sections 234B and 234C was also addressed.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable when the source of deposits is not doubted and TDS has been deducted on the interest income. The addition of interest income under Section 69A was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 34,33,460/- for purchases from M/s. Canon Fasteners was wrongly made as the inquiry was conducted at the wrong address. For purchases from the Sanjay Jain group, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 11% (for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21) and 12.5% (for AY 2018-19) on the bogus purchases, reduced by the profit already declared.
The Tribunal held that the section 148A proceedings were invalid because the notice issued to the assessee provided less than the statutory seven days for a reply. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that technical aspects should not stand in the way of substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, with the condition that the assessee must plead and prove the case at their own risk.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 88 days in filing the present appeal, citing the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice.
The Tribunal observed that the Tax Evasion Petition and the Assessing Officer's orders lacked specific details and a clear basis for arriving at the alleged bogus purchases figure. It further noted that in identical circumstances for A.Y. 2013-14, reassessment was quashed, and for A.Y. 2015-16, the issue was dropped. Finding the addition of Rs. 96,65,965/- on account of profit from alleged bogus purchases to be wholly unjustified and without basis, the Tribunal deleted it.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer accepted the cash deposits as genuine and made no additions, and considering the assessee's bona fide belief, the penalty under Section 271D was not sustainable. The penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.
The Tribunal found that there was no misrepresentation or suppression of facts by the assessee, as the purchase returns were duly explained. The assessee's act of paying taxes and seeking immunity was to maintain peace, not an admission of misreporting. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's case was not covered under Section 270A(9)(a), and consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 270A was deleted on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal and confirmed that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, subject to all just exceptions.
The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without providing reasons or adjudicating the merits of the disallowance under Section 43B. With no objection from the learned DR, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits and to pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-service of the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, despite being granted time to produce proof of service. The Tribunal found the plea of the department to be based on presumption and quashed the entire proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued beyond the prescribed period of three years without obtaining the necessary approval from the specified authority as per Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions u/s 68 of the Act cannot be made when the books of account are rejected and profit is estimated at a certain percentage, as this would account for all expenses. The Tribunal also noted that if books of account are rejected, no addition can be made u/s 68 in the absence of books of account.
The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's corresponding business sales were not disputed, and books of accounts were not rejected. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to a lump sum of 5% of the impugned bogus purchases, specifying that this decision should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal found the AO's additions unjust, unfair, unreasonable, and illegal, setting them aside. It recognized the assessee's reconciliation of payments through bank accounts in the US (State Bank of India) and India (Ahmedabad Branch), an HDFC Bank loan, and SBI NRE account for loan repayments. The Tribunal allowed grounds 1 to 5, while additional grounds 6.1 and 6.2 were dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority (PCCIT/CCIT) as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal.
The Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Prannoy Roy, held that interest under Section 234A is compensatory and should be charged only until the date of payment of self-assessment tax, not until the date of filing the return. Since the assessee had paid the self-assessment tax, including interest, before the extended due date for filing the return, the additional interest of Rs. 3,39,730/- charged by the CPC for the period up to the return filing date was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority (PCCIT/CCIT) as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal.
The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.
The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances on A&M expenses, finding the reassessment proceedings to be without jurisdiction as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during the original assessment. Additions under Section 14A were also upheld as per the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority (PCCIT/CCIT) as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(b) of the Act can only be levied on undisclosed income unearthed during a search, not on additional income offered during the course of search if no incriminating material was found. The penalty was wrongly imposed as there was no unearthing of undisclosed income.
The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) illegally considered the merits of the appeal without condoning the delay. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
While acknowledging the assessee's declared salary income and the possibility of past savings, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to fully prove the source of the cash deposits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restricted the addition to a lump sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for each assessment year to cover the deficiencies, clarifying that this estimation should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the assessee's entitlement to one self-occupied property and finalize the ALV for the co-owned property after granting an opportunity of hearing. It was further held that the addition for the property solely owned by the wife, an independent taxpayer, cannot be made in the assessee's hands, and the claim for interest deduction of Rs. 2 lakhs must be allowed.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (share certificates) filed by the assessee, which were not produced before the lower authorities. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.
The Tribunal held that the AO, having accepted the assessee's books of accounts, could not arbitrarily discard a part of the trading account (cash sales). The addition was made without concrete evidence that the cash deposited was other than cash in hand from sales, and therefore, the addition was illegal.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed pursuant to a notice under Section 143(2) issued by an AO who lacked territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that an assessment order based on a notice from a non-jurisdictional AO is invalid and must be quashed, as participation in proceedings does not confer jurisdiction. Ground No. 1 of the appeal was allowed, and other grounds were not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the deemed dividend addition could not be invoked because the assessee's company, M/s Skyline Constructions, had accumulated losses of Rs.2,96,342/- as of 13.11.2016. Since the company lacked accumulated profits, the deeming fiction of dividends under Section 2(22)(e) was inapplicable, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances on A&M expenses, finding the reassessment proceedings to be without jurisdiction as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during the original assessment. Additions under Section 14A were also upheld as per the CIT(A)'s order.