Loading ITAT cases…
441 orders · Page 5 of 9
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of warranty provision made by the assessee was permissible based on scientific basis and past records, citing Supreme Court decisions. Regarding the transfer pricing adjustment for corporate mark fee, the matter was remanded to the AO for re-verification if the agreements were identical to a previously decided case. The revenue's appeal against the deletion of addition on account of advance from customers was dismissed, relying on previous decisions and High Court affirmations.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessment by adding Rs. 9,25,00,000/-. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, the Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A)'s power of enhancement under section 251(1)(a) is restricted to the subject matter of assessment or sources of income considered by the AO from the point of view of taxability. Since the AO had only considered and added Rs. 80,00,000/-, the CIT(A) could not travel outside the record to introduce new sources of income for enhancement. Various other judicial precedents also supported this view. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s enhancement action was reversed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- made by the AO, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the AO's addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- was upheld. The assessee's quantum appeal (ITA No. 1699/Del/2019) was partly allowed. For the penalty appeal (ITA No. 5544/Del/2019), the Tribunal, relying on CIT v. Reliance Petro products, held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was wrongly invoked. The penalty appeal was accepted in full.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)/NFAC's remand directions. The assessee was granted liberty to raise all factual and legal grounds before the assessing authority in the consequential proceedings.
The impugned expenses, such as staff welfare, bank charges, business promotion, and discounts, could not be entirely ruled out but the assessee also failed to prove the relevant facts. A lump sum disallowance of Rs.1,00,000/- is deemed appropriate and should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is an approved Provident Fund Trust and placed on record a letter of recognition from the CIT. In view of this approval, which was not disputed by the Revenue, the interest income was held to be not taxable.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked as the assessee was not a common shareholder to the specified extent. For administrative and processing charges, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion based on prior judicial consistency. Revenue's appeals were dismissed for certain AYs due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a detailed reply regarding the cash deposit addition which was not considered by the AO. The Tribunal restored the issue of cash deposits to the AO for fresh consideration on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its claim. The ground relating to disallowance was not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable because the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, given that the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The approval obtained was from a lower authority, rendering the notice invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed the assessing authority to verify the assessee's application of income to determine if it falls under Rule 17B(a)(III) of the Income Tax Rules, granting the appellant three effective opportunities.
The Revenue did not dispute the assessee's averment regarding the submission of forms under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the case file. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked as the assessee was not a common shareholder to the specified extent. For administrative and processing charges, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion based on prior judicial consistency. Revenue's appeals were dismissed for certain AYs due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. Observing the possibility of communication gaps and lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the approval for reopening was mechanical and lacked proper satisfaction. Citing the precedent of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 242 (SC), the Tribunal held that such mechanical approval vitiates the reopening.
The Tribunal observed that a substantive addition of the same amount was confirmed in the case of Shri Naveen Kumar Goel, and no appeal was filed against that order. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the protective addition made in the assessee's hands, deeming it unsustainable as it would amount to double addition.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27.07.2022, for Assessment Year 2013-14, is barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed. The reasoning is based on the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024 SCC Online SC 2693). This judgment requires the 'surviving period' for reassessment proceedings to be computed on a case-to-case basis, accounting for exclusions. In this case, the period from 28.06.2021 (when the original notice was issued and treated as a Section 148A(b) notice) to 31.05.2022 (when the assessee was given time to reply) was excluded. Furthermore, the fourth proviso to Section 149(1) limits the Assessing Officer to a maximum of seven days to issue a notice under Section 148 after the assessee's reply. Applying these principles, the outer limit for issuing the notice expired on 24.06.2022. Since the impugned notice was issued on 27.07.2022, it falls outside the statutory limitation period. The Ld. DR could not controvert these facts. The operative direction is to quash the notice.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked as the assessee was not a common shareholder to the specified extent. For administrative and processing charges, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion based on prior judicial consistency. Revenue's appeals were dismissed for certain AYs due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked as the assessee was not a common shareholder to the specified extent. For administrative and processing charges, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion based on prior judicial consistency. Revenue's appeals were dismissed for certain AYs due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked as the assessee was not a common shareholder to the specified extent. For administrative and processing charges, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion based on prior judicial consistency. Revenue's appeals were dismissed for certain AYs due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 908 days in filing the appeal, considering the pandemic period and the principles laid down in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value and part of enhanced compensation, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF. Therefore, it is not taxable as income from other sources.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had offered the interest income to tax, and thus, there was no dispute regarding its accrual. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in TRF Ltd. vs CIT, it was sufficient for the amount to be written off as irrecoverable in the books of account, without needing to prove actual bad debt. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue could not dispute the lack of a mandatory section 143(2) notice, referencing the precedent set in ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC). Consequently, the impugned assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal heard the contentions of both parties. In view of the prayer made by the authorized representative of the assessee, supported by a letter dated 10.02.2026, the appeal filed by M/s. Decent Securities (P) Ltd. for Assessment Year 2017-18 was permitted to be withdrawn. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's representative had no objection to this request. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. The specific reasoning for the withdrawal, as detailed in the assessee's letter, revolved around subsequent orders and a prior ITAT ruling that rendered the current appeal infructuous. The Tribunal did not independently adjudicate on the merits of the original assessment or the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented his wholesale and retail business, which is an unorganized sector. A lump sum addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- was deemed appropriate as profit element, to not be treated as a precedent. Section 115BBE is applicable only for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and not taxable as income from other sources. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in Pawan Kumar vs. PCIT, distinguishing contrary High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC lacked jurisdiction to pass the assessment order before the effective date of the notification for the faceless assessment scheme. Consequently, the assessment order and all subsequent orders passed were deemed to be without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument that the addition was based on assumptions. The close proximity of the two agreements suggested the possibility of on-money payment, supporting the Revenue's claim.
The Tribunal noted that the legal issue of the correctness of the reopening was paramount. The reopening was initiated for specific reasons which were inconsistent with the grounds for the assessment, rendering it unsustainable in law. The reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal restricted the impugned addition only to the cash deposits made in the relevant previous year amounting to Rs. 14,12,056/-, as reduced by the explained amount. The remaining cash deposits were made in subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the order of the PCIT was not sustainable. The interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and exempt under Section 10(37) for individuals/HUFs, aligning with Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for reopening the assessment beyond three years was not obtained from the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the subsequent assessment proceedings were also unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) could not be invoked as the assessee was not a common shareholder to the specified extent. For administrative and processing charges, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion based on prior judicial consistency. Revenue's appeals were dismissed for certain AYs due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular.
The tribunal noted that the approval for reopening was mechanical and not based on the specific facts of the case, citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. This mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening process.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business involves sourcing from unregistered dealers, and its sales were not questioned. Considering the peculiar facts and divergent views on similar issues, the Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the alleged bogus purchases, which amounts to Rs. 16,86,174/-. This decision is not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the interest component of land acquisition compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. Considering the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the assessee's appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to undertake the adjudication within three effective opportunities of hearing, with the proceedings being at the appellant's risk and responsibility. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. No specific findings on the merits of the additions were made as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal found some merit in the assessee's claim regarding previous withdrawals. In the interest of justice, it reduced the addition to Rs.2.20 lakhs, granting relief of Rs.30 lakhs to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the source of the purchase amount was supported by a bank transfer from the assessee's mother, and this fact was unrebutted by the Revenue. Therefore, the addition made on this account was not justified.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with three opportunities of hearing. Additionally, regarding the issue under section 115BBE, the Tribunal followed a Madras High Court ruling that the provision applies to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's business activity was not in dispute and that the source of impugned cash deposits was substantially explained as cash-in-hand from regular business turnover. It was inferred that remaining cash deposits were also business receipts.
The tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the introduction of virtual hearings, and found it appropriate to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment suffered from a complete non-application of mind by the assessing authority, citing several judicial precedents. This factual discrepancy rendered the reopening unsustainable.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee is engaged in business and sourcing from unregistered dealers is not impossible, and their sales were not questioned. Considering the peculiar facts and in the larger interest of justice, a lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the alleged bogus purchases was deemed appropriate, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent. The assessee's book entries were rejected to the extent necessary for computation.
The Tribunal held that technicalities must give way to substantial justice, following the precedent set in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 147 read with section 143(3) was not sustainable in law. The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings based on specific reasons concerning an alleged excess deduction of Rs. 2,28,937/-. However, the final assessment order included a disallowance of Rs. 4,22,465/- under section 24(b), which was entirely unrelated to the original reasons for reopening. The Tribunal relied on the precedents of Ranbaxy Laboratory Vs. CIT (2011) 335 ITR 136 (Del) and CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), which state that reopening proceedings are not sustainable if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition based on the sole reason provided for reopening. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal, following precedents from the Supreme Court and its own coordinate benches, held that notices issued under section 148 for AY 2015-16 on or after April 1, 2021, are barred by limitation. This is due to the non-applicability of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA).
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's son had attained majority during the relevant period, the interest income could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee under section 64 of the Act. For the penalty appeal, it was held that section 270A(6) excludes 'bonafide' cases where the assessee offers an explanation.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's son had attained majority during the relevant period, the interest income could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee under section 64 of the Act. For the penalty appeal, it was held that section 270A(6) excludes 'bonafide' cases where the assessee offers an explanation.