Loading ITAT cases…
1,215 orders · Page 23 of 25
The CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee would be entitled to set off the earlier years' excess expenditure over income with the unutilized accumulated fund. The Tribunal agreed that due to the injunction order, the utilization of funds was beyond the assessee's control, and the reopening of assessment u/s 147 was flawed.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some evidence, a statement indicated their involvement in an accommodation entry network. Therefore, instead of rejecting turnover entirely, a lump sum GP addition of 8% was made on impugned credit entries. The disallowance of bogus purchases at 12.5% was upheld.
The Tribunal held that loose slips seized during a search operation, containing entries of cash and cheque payments, are admissible evidence. The assessee's claim that these were 'dumb slips' and their subsequent retraction were rejected as an afterthought.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid, dismissing the assessee's cross-objection. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in deleting substantial additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning sham transactions and engineered losses, confirming the Assessing Officer's additions.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were valid, dismissing the assessee's cross-objection. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in deleting substantial additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning sham transactions and engineered losses, confirming the Assessing Officer's additions.
The tribunal held that the approval granted by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax under section 153D of the Act was invalid. The approval was a common one for multiple assessment years, including those under appeal, and was granted without proper application of mind, failing to indicate that the draft orders were perused. This vitiated the entire assessment process.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to properly record satisfaction that the impugned seized documents pertained to or related to the assessee, which is a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision on a similar issue.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing electrical wires and cables and could source purchases from unregistered dealers. While noting divergent views on similar issues, the Tribunal deemed a lumpsum disallowance of 10% of the alleged bogus purchases (Rs. 6,68,515/-) as just and proper in the interest of justice. However, this disallowance was made with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Furthermore, a precedent was established that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had earned exempt income in the nature of dividends. Both lower authorities failed to consider that under Section 14A and Rule 8D, only dividend-yielding investments should be considered for disallowance, as settled by precedents like PCIT Vs. Caraf Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd. and ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. To ensure justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the appeal and restore it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, having heard both parties and considering the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of cooperation despite notices, decided to remit the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order based on the evidence on record or any additional evidence the assessee may choose to file during the hearing. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee fails to cooperate again, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issues were left undecided, but the adjudication of the substantive issues was deferred to the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal, having heard both parties and considering the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of cooperation despite notices, decided to remit the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order based on the evidence on record or any additional evidence the assessee may choose to file during the hearing. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee fails to cooperate again, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issues were left undecided, but the adjudication of the substantive issues was deferred to the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought an adjournment for filing the Paper Book, while the Revenue pointed out the ex parte nature of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. Despite opportunities, the assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, found it appropriate to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on merits. This decision was made in the interest of justice, ensuring the assessee is given due opportunity to present their case. The Assessing Officer's representative did not oppose this proposition.
The Tribunal, having heard both parties and considering the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of cooperation despite notices, decided to remit the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order based on the evidence on record or any additional evidence the assessee may choose to file during the hearing. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee fails to cooperate again, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issues were left undecided, but the adjudication of the substantive issues was deferred to the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee remained non-compliant throughout the proceedings before the lower authorities. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee, to be deposited with the Legal Aid Authority. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo consideration after providing due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal, having heard both parties and considering the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of cooperation despite notices, decided to remit the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order based on the evidence on record or any additional evidence the assessee may choose to file during the hearing. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee fails to cooperate again, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issues were left undecided, but the adjudication of the substantive issues was deferred to the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal considered the assessee's declared turnover and noted that the cash deposits could prima facie be part of jewellery sales. However, the explanation for the Rs.17 lakhs addition from Sh. Ankit Gupta via banking route raised doubts about its genuineness. The Tribunal held that both additions should be assessed as part of the assessee's regular business turnover with a 6% GP estimation, but this should not be treated as a precedent.
While acknowledging the possibility of sourcing from unregistered dealers and that the assessee's sales were not questioned, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's book entries to the extent of the disputed purchases. A lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the alleged bogus purchases was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal held that the Standing Order under Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, defines territorial jurisdiction based on the 'situs' of the Assessing Officer. As of 01.10.1997, the situs of the assessee's Assessing Officer was not covered under Delhi benches' jurisdiction. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision in PCIT Vs. ABC Paper Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 68,41,000/-. The assessee had demonstrated that these cash deposits originated from genuine cash sales of jewelry, which were recorded in the Profit and Loss account and offered for taxation. The Tribunal relied on the precedent in ACIT vs. Haripanna Jewellers & Anr., which held that cash generated from sales of goods, properly recorded and offered for taxation, cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits, as this would lead to double taxation. The AO had not rejected the assessee's books. For the amount of Rs. 2,48,000/-, the CIT(A) correctly applied CBDT Circular No. 03/2017, which allows deposits up to Rs. 2,50,000/- during demonetization without further verification, and was supported by judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 51,58,301/-. The CIT(A) correctly noted that the AO's reliance solely on non-response to Section 133(6) notices was insufficient when the assessee provided purchase bills, sales evidence, and account confirmations. Precedents like CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited and ITO vs. Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd. were cited, emphasizing that transactions cannot be deemed bogus merely due to non-appearance of suppliers. The Tribunal agreed that doubting current liabilities while accepting purchases and sales creates a logical inconsistency. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that a significant portion of sundry creditors might represent opening balances, which cannot be taxed in a subsequent year, citing cases like Ivan Singh vs. ACIT. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee from Indian airlines do not qualify as royalty under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands Treaty, referencing various judicial precedents. Consequently, the assessee was justified in not offering this income to tax in India.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable and sufficient cause for the 413-day delay, considering it was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and not mala fide. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided only two opportunities and disposed of the appeal ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,79,47,174/-. The reasoning was that the foreign remittances were made on behalf of clients to foreign transporters, and the income of such non-residents is covered under Section 172 of the Act. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. V. S. Dempo & Co. Put. Ltd., which held that Section 195 is not applicable when income is covered under Section 172, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's argument regarding the Rs. 26,52,500/- addition, stating the Revenue failed to prove the taxability of the expenditure in the foreign recipient's hands. However, considering the factual backdrop and the assessee's failure to provide reconciliation, the Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 2 lakhs, confirming the deletion of Rs. 24,52,500/-. The Tribunal also directed that assessment under Section 115BBE would not apply to transactions prior to April 1, 2017, as per the Madras High Court's decision in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT, and the assessee should be assessed under normal provisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the TDS credit. It was found that the interest income earned on advances to contractors was intrinsically linked to the construction activity and was treated as a capital receipt, thus reduced from 'Capital Work in Progress'. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents stating that TDS credit is admissible even if the income is not directly offered for tax, as long as it's indirectly accounted for.
The Tribunal held that the amounts received by the Assessee from its Indian customers do not constitute 'Royalty' as defined under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Consequently, the Assessee was justified in not offering these receipts to tax in India.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 73 days in filing the appeal. It was observed that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and did not decide all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 28.06.2022 was barred by limitation. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, and the jurisdictional High Court decision in Ram Balram Buildhome Vs. ITO, the Tribunal found that the extended due date for issuing the notice had expired prior to the actual issuance.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from Indian customers do not constitute royalty under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherlands DTAA, as the assessee did not grant any right to use intellectual property or provide information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific experience in the manner defined by the treaty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for bogus purchases, finding that suppliers confirmed the claims and the AO's remand report did not contain adverse comments. The addition for closing stock was also deleted as the assessee provided reconciliation and verification.
The Tribunal held that a trust registered under Section 12A is eligible for exemption under Section 11 if conditions are met, and a temporary break in charitable activities does not automatically disqualify it. Donations to other charitable trusts can be considered application of income.
The Tribunal held that the payments received for milestone achievements related to the supply of rolling stock were not FTS as per Article 12(4) of the DTAA. Interest under Section 234B was also not chargeable for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had extensively dealt with the matter, considering the AO's observations and the assessee's evidence, along with judicial precedents. The CIT(A)'s conclusion that the AO's grounds for disallowance were not sustainable was found to be based on correct facts and legal reliance.
The Tribunal held that the payments received for milestone achievements related to the supply of rolling stock were not FTS as per Article 12(4) of the DTAA. Interest under Section 234B was also not chargeable for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, decided to allow the appeal for statistical purposes and remit the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The reasoning was based on the fact that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was admittedly ex parte, and despite notices being sent, the assessee did not appear or cooperate before the said authority. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order based on the evidence on record or any other evidence the assessee might file during the fresh hearing. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee again fails to cooperate, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire matter was remitted.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders vitiated. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders vitiated. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished documents to prove the transaction, but the AO required further factual verification regarding the source of funds. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal, having heard both parties and considering the ex parte nature of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's lack of cooperation before that authority, decided to remit the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order based on the evidence on record or any additional evidence the assessee might file during the fresh hearing. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee fails to cooperate again, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. The appeals were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal, having heard both parties and considering the ex parte nature of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's lack of cooperation before that authority, decided to remit the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order based on the evidence on record or any additional evidence the assessee might file during the fresh hearing. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee fails to cooperate again, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. The appeals were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal, having heard both parties and considering the ex parte nature of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's lack of cooperation before that authority, decided to remit the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order based on the evidence on record or any additional evidence the assessee might file during the fresh hearing. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee fails to cooperate again, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. The appeals were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal, having heard both parties and considering the ex parte nature of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's lack of cooperation before that authority, decided to remit the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order based on the evidence on record or any additional evidence the assessee might file during the fresh hearing. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee fails to cooperate again, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. The appeals were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 26.03.2002 passed under Section 158BC was barred by limitation under Section 158BE(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the first and last authorization for search was executed on 17.12.1999. Based on this, the block assessment should have been completed by 31.12.2001. Even considering the operation of the locker on 27.03.2000, or the order under Section 132(3) passed on 17.12.1999 which has a maximum validity of 60 days (expiring on 17.02.2000) unless extended, the two-year period for assessment would fall in February 2002. Since there was no indication of extension for the Section 132(3) order, the assessment order dated 26.03.2002 was found to be beyond the prescribed limitation period and thus void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and quashed the impugned assessment order. All other grounds of appeal concerning the merits of the additions became academic. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the appeal arising out of the assessment order ought to have been filed before the ITAT, Kolkata. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was bad in law and the assessment framed under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was quashed. The grounds of appeal related to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C were allowed.
The tribunal held that the delay in PF remittance was due to technical issues beyond the assessee's control and allowed the deduction. Regarding dividend tax, the tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decision and allowed the refund of excess tax paid.
The tribunal held that the delay in PF remittance was due to technical issues beyond the assessee's control and allowed the deduction. Regarding dividend tax, the tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decision and allowed the refund of excess tax paid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on highway projects. The issue was covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case and other relevant case laws.
The Tribunal held that the date of search for the assessee would be the date of receipt of seized material by the AO. It further held that the assessment for AY 2021-22, initiated under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C, was void ab initio and quashed the assessment.