Loading ITAT cases…
958 orders · Page 13 of 20
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same year was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty order, which was confirmed by the CIT(A), could not be sustained and was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued without the approval of the prescribed authority, the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT)/Chief Commissioner (CCIT), as mandated by Section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, the notice and the reassessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's cash sales, which were duly reflected in the books of accounts and tax returns. The AO had not rejected the books of accounts, and the sales figures were accepted by the revenue, thus making the addition a double addition.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the additional legal ground raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication of this ground.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee's submissions regarding bills from earlier years for which TDS was deducted in the current year. The assessee was directed to provide necessary evidence for proper reconciliation.
The Tribunal held that interest income from investments does not constitute an asset as defined in Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the basis for reopening the assessment was flawed, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C, finding the satisfaction note to be valid. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal reduced the profit rate from 12% (AO) and 6% (CIT(A)) to 5% on the gross receipts, considering the nature of accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an order without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de novo consideration, allowing the assessee another opportunity to furnish requisite evidence to establish the claim of exempt income from the sale of agricultural land.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not specific enough to establish that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. Relying on a coordinate bench decision and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Saksham Commodities Ltd., the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal found that while non-compliance by suppliers and GST cancellations raise suspicion, they are not conclusive proof of bogus purchases. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and confirmed the addition made by the AO, but reduced the profit element to 5% of the total purchases.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the reassessment proceedings and assessment order were invalid because they were passed against a non-existent company. The CIT(A) noted that the company had not been revived by the NCLT when the notice and order were issued.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on investments parked in banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as per Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions. The assessee's reliance on a different section (80P(2)(d)) was found distinguishable.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not specific enough to establish that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. Relying on a coordinate bench decision and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Saksham Commodities Ltd., the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, as the assessee was not represented before either authority. No interference was deemed necessary.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing to explain the deficiencies noted by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to provide one effective opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the factual verification regarding the assessee's claim of the cash deposit being part of his turnover was lacking. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after considering the evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, as the assessee was not represented before either authority. No interference was deemed necessary.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, filing under Section 44AD, would not naturally have demonstrative evidence for cash deposits. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal found no occasion to doubt the assessee's statement of past savings and directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was valid. The satisfaction note referred to documents found during the search on the DNC group, which were considered to pertain to the assessee and had a bearing on their total income. Therefore, the assessee's first ground of appeal was dismissed. Regarding the estimation of income, the Tribunal found that while the assessee claimed no incriminating material was found, the assessee's own statements during the search admitted to providing accommodation entries, which were later retracted without a satisfactory explanation. Statements from the accountant and auditor also indicated no actual services were rendered. The Tribunal invoked Section 145(3). Considering the turnover and average GP rates in preceding years (12.55%), the AO's 12% rate was deemed high. The CIT(A)'s reduction to 6% was also considered. The Tribunal further reduced the profit rate to 5% on gross receipts, directing the AO to recompute the income accordingly. The addition was sustained to the extent of 5% profit, with the remaining addition deleted. Assessee's grounds 2-4 were partly allowed, and Revenue's grounds 1-3 were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 was bad in law as it was based on suspicion and lacked independent application of mind by the AO. Additionally, the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued for the correct assessment year, rendering the assessment order liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that notices and orders issued in e-proceedings must be digitally signed by the Assessing Officer. Since the notices and order in this case were manually signed, they were considered invalid, rendering the reassessment proceedings void.
The Tribunal held that the gifts received by the assessee from his mother were indeed in the relevant financial year and properly accounted for, thus deleting the addition related to property acquisition. For the demonetization deposit, the Tribunal found the cash book unreliable and upheld a partial addition.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee's trading results are accepted and books of account are not rejected, no addition is permissible for cash deposits. It also held that non-compliance with the Companies Act provisions for share application money does not automatically make the transaction an unexplained cash credit under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is invalid and fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. Consequently, the assessments framed based on such notes were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable as the reasons for reopening the assessment were for bogus loans, not for repayment of loans. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions stating that reassessment proceedings are confined to the issues forming the basis of reopening.
The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is invalid and fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. Consequently, the assessments framed based on such notes were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had indeed conducted inquiries and considered submissions on the issues highlighted by the PCIT. The PCIT's conclusion that no inquiries were made was based on a sweeping statement without specific identification of issues. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under section 263 was not validly exercised.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions of Section 68 by not providing complete and satisfactory financial documents of the investor company. The approval of inward remittances by the RBI does not absolve the assessee of its obligations under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is invalid and fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. Consequently, the assessments framed based on such notes were quashed.
The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is invalid and fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. Consequently, the assessments framed based on such notes were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee, in the nature of excise duty exemption, is not taxable as it is a capital receipt and does not fall within the definition of income under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition related to net profit estimation and the addition made under section 68. The Assessing Officer was found to have exceeded his jurisdiction in making these additions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all necessary documents and that the CIT(E) had failed to consider them. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was invalid as it did not clearly indicate that the seized material belonged to the assessee or had a bearing on the determination of their total income. This was in line with previous jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had explained the source of funds through bank transactions and a loan. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no perversity in the findings.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was flawed because the AO's satisfaction note did not explicitly state that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Therefore, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that an allotment in a residential unit, along with a purchase agreement and assignment, qualifies for the purpose of Section 54 deduction, even if the full payment was not made before construction completion. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was flawed because the AO's satisfaction note did not explicitly state that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Therefore, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct independent inquiries to prove the assessee received accommodation entries. Relying solely on the Investigation Wing report without independent evidence was insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the onus to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the assessee was not disputed by the revenue, and no material was provided to suggest otherwise. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded on presumptions and assumptions, even questioning the amalgamation approved by the Kolkata High Court. The Tribunal stated that once the assessee discharged their onus, the burden shifted to the revenue to prove the transactions were not genuine. The Tribunal observed that the revenue failed to discharge this shifted onus, bringing no material to show that the transactions were not genuine or that the assessee was involved in rigging share prices. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities rejected the LTCG claim without legal or factual basis. Therefore, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee, holding that the assessee was a genuine investor and had genuinely purchased and sold the shares. The addition of Rs. 70,62,901 was directed to be deleted. The remaining legal and general grounds were rendered academic and left undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding the share transactions to be dubious and lacking economic justification. The assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to substantiate the claim of genuine investment and extraordinary price rise.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for past years, held that the balance receipts of Rs. 3,62,47,332/- are not taxable as FTS. The Hon'ble High Court had previously ruled that the 'make available' clause in Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA requires a transfer of expertise, knowledge, or skill that enables the recipient to perform the functions independently. Mere furnishing of services or sharing of research material does not satisfy this condition. The High Court found no evidence of expertise, skill, or know-how being made available to BCCI, and the continued engagement indicated reliance on IMG's expertise rather than a transfer of skills. Consequently, the addition made by the AO on account of FTS was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed. The judgment does not explicitly address grounds 6, 7, and 8 regarding TDS credit, penalty, and interest, but the allowance of the appeal implies these issues would be resolved consequentially.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted proper inquiries and verification during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable because the Assessing Officer made no addition based on the specific reasons recorded for reopening. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents that quash reopening when the grounds for it are not substantiated in the assessment.