Loading ITAT cases…
1,215 orders · Page 18 of 25
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary documents and comply with the notices issued by the Ld. PCIT(E). However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. PCIT(E) for re-adjudication after providing a due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary documents and comply with the notices issued by the Ld. PCIT(E). However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. PCIT(E) for re-adjudication after providing a due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and provided Form No. 4 as proof of settlement. The CIT-DR had no objection to the dismissal of the appeal on this ground.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the case and had not followed the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee attempted to prove sales as the source of cash deposits, there was some element of failure to explain the entire amount. The tribunal directed a lump-sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs, to be treated as not a precedent. Regarding the levy of tax under section 115BBE, the Tribunal followed a Madras High Court ruling and directed taxation under normal provisions.
The ITAT noted that the order under Section 263, which was the basis for the subsequent assessment order that the CIT(A) had deleted, had itself been quashed by the ITAT in a prior order. Consequently, the assessment order derived from the quashed Section 263 order became infructuous.
The Tribunal observed that the AO did not provide a fair opportunity to examine the documents submitted by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the additions based on written submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot direct the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271E in the absence of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. The impugned order of the PCIT was set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the NCLT approved the Resolution Plan under the IBC, no parallel proceedings under the Income Tax Act could be undertaken. This decision was supported by precedents where the IBC was held to have an overriding effect over the IT Act, thus rendering IT proceedings unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) erred in not adjudicating the issue of Section 56(2)(viib) addition, especially after the Assessing Officer's rectification order. The FAA's dismissal of the appeal as 'not adjudicated' was deemed inappropriate.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee attempted to file Form 10-IC within the extended due date but faced technical issues, leading to its submission via email. Considering that the delay was beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the benefit of Section 115BAA.
The Tribunal held that since the NCLT approved the Resolution Plan under the IBC, no parallel proceedings under the Income Tax Act could be undertaken. This decision was supported by precedents where the IBC was held to have an overriding effect over the IT Act, thus rendering IT proceedings unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the computation method in Rule 8D was inapplicable as there was no direct interest or expense related to exempt income. The investments in mutual funds were either redeemed in the same month or yielded capital gains, making the disallowance unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not appreciated the facts of the case properly. Despite the assessee providing evidence of land ownership and agricultural activities, including certificates from revenue authorities and previous acceptance of such income, the AO and CIT(A) had confirmed the addition based on bank information about land use conversion and lack of specific bills for produce sale and expenses.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares of Quasar Media Pvt. Ltd. was a transfer of capital assets and not a transfer of business. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly considered the sale as resulting in capital gains and not business income. The Tribunal also upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s allowance of the capital loss claimed by the assessee, noting that the AO had disallowed it without proper justification.
The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the current appeal as it had become infructuous due to a subsequent, correctly filed appeal. The tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that mesne profits, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, are a form of restitution and compensation for unjust enrichment. The nature of mesne profits is not revenue receipt but rather a capital receipt, and therefore, not chargeable to tax.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the entire case back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to verify whether the assessee was engaged in agricultural activities on the land sold in the two assessment years immediately preceding the year of sale. The AO is to decide the issue in accordance with law after this verification. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to possess evidence, such as Girdwari, which could not be filed before the lower authorities earlier, to prove agricultural activities. This decision addresses the primary ground of appeal concerning the disallowance of deduction under section 54B. The other grounds of appeal, including additions to returned income, reduction of loss, initiation of proceedings under section 270A, and charging of interest under sections 234B and 234D, are implicitly covered by the remand, as their determination depends on the outcome of the section 54B issue.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under section 153C were time-barred. The satisfaction note for the non-searched person (assessee) was recorded on 24.06.2022, which, as per Supreme Court decisions, determined the deemed year of search as FY 2022-23 (AY 2023-24). The ten-year period backward from AY 2023-24 ends at AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under section 153C were time-barred. The satisfaction note for the non-searched person (assessee) was recorded on 24.06.2022, which, as per Supreme Court decisions, determined the deemed year of search as FY 2022-23 (AY 2023-24). The ten-year period backward from AY 2023-24 ends at AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal allowed Ground of Appeal No. 4, quashing the assessment order for Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary issue decided was the validity of the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act. The Tribunal noted that a single approval was granted for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18 through one order, based on the AO's request. This was found to be a ritualistic approval, not reflecting an application of mind as mandated by Section 153D and various judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Third Member's decision in Dheeraj Chaudhary Vs. ACIT. The Tribunal emphasized that approval under Section 153D cannot be a mere formality but must demonstrate an appropriate application of mind to the facts of the case. Since the assessment order was quashed on this ground, the regular grounds of appeal concerning additions under Sections 68 and 69C, satisfaction note, and cross-examination were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The operative direction was to quash the assessment order.
The Tribunal noted a decision from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, which held Section 115BBE applicable. However, applying this to the assessee's case resulted in a tax effect below the threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment under Section 147 was invalid and vitiated due to a lack of proper application of mind by the approving authority. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance under Section 80-IA as the concept of 'initial assessment year' is not relevant for setting off of notional losses of earlier years, and the assessee has a choice in deciding the year from which to claim deduction. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, relying on judicial precedents that disallowance cannot exceed exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance under Section 80-IA as the concept of 'initial assessment year' is not relevant for setting off of notional losses of earlier years, and the assessee has a choice in deciding the year from which to claim deduction. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, relying on judicial precedents that disallowance cannot exceed exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance under Section 80-IA as the concept of 'initial assessment year' is not relevant for setting off of notional losses of earlier years, and the assessee has a choice in deciding the year from which to claim deduction. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, relying on judicial precedents that disallowance cannot exceed exempt income.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard and that the notice lacked clarity. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the issue back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the principle of natural justice was violated. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard and decide afresh.
The Tribunal held that the compliance regarding furnishing Form No. 10B is consistently treated as a directory provision by various decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts. Without contrary judicial precedent, the bench cannot deem the impugned order erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance was based on conjectures and surmises, not on cogent evidence. The Tribunal noted that payments were made through banking channels with TDS deducted and that the non-disclosure by recipients does not automatically make the expense non-genuine.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of treating entire finished goods as sales was incorrect. The assessee followed the 'Project Completion Method' for revenue recognition, and sales are booked upon execution of sale deeds and physical possession. The advances received should not be taxed as income until the sale is concluded.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the computation method in Rule 8D was inapplicable as there was no direct interest or expense related to exempt income. The investments in mutual funds were either redeemed in the same month or yielded capital gains, making the disallowance unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the CPC did not allow the full TDS credit claimed by the assessee, leading to a Section 154 application which was denied. The assessee claimed that TDS credit of INR 1,72,37,943/- was duly appearing in Form 26AS. The assessee's representative requested a remand to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification of the TDS credit against the income declared. Considering this, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the issue back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to verify the TDS credit claimed by the assessee and the corresponding income declared, and allow the credit in accordance with law. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 4 were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, directing a reduction in the Gross Profit (GP) rate on the deposits. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not dispute the assessee's business or declared sales. The Tribunal allowed part of the addition, sustaining Rs. 2,00,000, and allowed Ground No. 3 regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal observed that the property was co-owned and the entire consideration was paid by the assessee's husband from his savings and a housing loan. It was also noted that the assessee is a housewife with no independent source of income, and no action was taken against the husband regarding this payment.
The Tribunal found that borrowed funds were not utilized for investments that generated exempt dividend income, making the disallowance under Section 14A factually incorrect. The claim for interest paid on loans against short-term capital gains was disallowed, with the assessee permitted to carry forward the interest.
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 143(2) were invalid as they were issued manually without the required DIN, written reasons, or prior approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was vitiated.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel presented evidence showing the audit report was filed on 31.03.2019, before the assessment order was passed. Relying on this, the Tribunal found the penalty to be unjustified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear despite notices and did not provide any compliance or documentation to the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal found the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) to be just and proper.
The Tribunal held that a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- as business income would be just and proper, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent. The impugned addition of Rs. 73,30,000/- was deleted to the extent of Rs. 68,30,000/-.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee is engaged in a regular business of metal trading as a wholesaler and retailer and had produced its sales register, the lower authorities could not deny the explanation for the cash deposits in its entirety. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs.5 lakhs was deemed just and proper, with the rider that it would not be treated as a precedent. This grants the assessee relief of Rs.47,49,500/-. Regarding the application of section 115BBE, the Tribunal, relying on S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Madras), held that this provision applies only to transactions done on or after 01.04.2017. Consequently, the assessee is directed to be assessed under normal provisions of law for this assessment year. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the admission of an additional ground of appeal challenging the legality of the order passed under section 153A, arguing that no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated this additional ground. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellate order deserved to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the assessee's appeal, considering the legal ground raised through the additional ground. The CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate the matter in accordance with the law after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The same decision was applied mutatis mutandis to the appeal for AY 2018-19. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made under section 68 or section 44AD, as the primary issue was the non-adjudication of the legality of the section 153A proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 143(2) were invalid as they were issued manually without the required DIN, written reasons, or prior approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was vitiated.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's estimation of GP at 12% was ad-hoc, without any reasoning, and based on conjectures. The Tribunal also found that the 2.998% was the Net Profit rate, not Gross Profit rate, as mistakenly understood by the AO. The Tribunal held that disturbing profit ratios requires rejection of books of accounts, which was not done.
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 143(2) were invalid as they were issued manually without the required DIN, written reasons, or prior approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was vitiated.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, both payer and payee, declared income at the maximum marginal rate for the assessment year. Citing various judicial precedents and a CBDT circular, the Tribunal held that disallowances are not maintainable in such revenue-neutral cases where both parties are taxed at the highest rate.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the notices were beyond jurisdiction due to the Revenue's concession before the Supreme Court. For AY 2014-15, the notice issued on 28.07.2022 was found to be beyond the limitation period, calculated based on the 'surviving period' after considering the extension by TOLA and the assessee's reply.
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 143(2) were invalid as they were issued manually without the required DIN, written reasons, or prior approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was vitiated.