Loading ITAT cases…
1,426 orders · Page 5 of 29
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding unexplained investment in gold coins and Ginnis, finding they belonged to the assessee's sister and brother. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal concerning unexplained investment in jewellery, directing credit for jewellery owned by the assessee's sister.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had not claimed any bogus LTCG or STCG from penny stock trading. The transactions were conducted in the normal course of business and accounted for in the Profit and Loss account.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding unexplained investment in gold coins and Ginnis, finding they belonged to the assessee's sister and brother. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal concerning unexplained investment in jewellery, directing credit for jewellery owned by the assessee's sister.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases. This disallowance was also to cover the undisclosed commission expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the remaining sum of Rs. 3,64,712/-. However, considering the facts, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding unexplained investment in gold coins and Ginnis, finding they belonged to the assessee's sister and brother. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal concerning unexplained investment in jewellery, directing credit for jewellery owned by the assessee's sister.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance with the statutory notices of the First Appellate Authority, as evident from the assailed appellate orders. However, the Tribunal agreed with the justification provided by the assessee for the impugned non-compliance. Recognizing that no litigant benefits from the non-prosecution of their case, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication de novo. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard and to pass a speaking order. The assessee was cautioned that any future non-compliance with statutory notices would be viewed adversely. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the AO made an ex-parte order and the CIT(A) did not call for a remand report on additional documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's representative's instruction. The assessees did not wish to proceed with their respective appeals.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's representative's instruction. The assessees did not wish to proceed with their respective appeals.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 and the consequent assessment order were invalid. This was in compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rajeev Bansal, which stated that notices issued after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 should be dropped.
The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under section 148 and the consequent assessment order. This decision was based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, stating that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 would be dropped.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of exempt income. Furthermore, where investments are made out of own funds exceeding the investments, proportionate disallowance of interest expenditure is unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed payment of contractor bills and interest on delayed refund of customer advances were compensatory in nature and incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Therefore, these were allowable as business expenditure.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's representative's instruction. The assessees did not wish to proceed with their respective appeals.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's representative's instruction. The assessees did not wish to proceed with their respective appeals.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities made the addition based on assumptions and presumptions, without discussing any incriminating material directly linking the assessee to the alleged on-money payment. Consequently, the addition was deleted.
The tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to plead and prove their case at their own risk.
The tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to plead and prove their case at their own risk.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the erroneous mention of Section 154, without considering the merits of the grounds raised. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the satisfaction note was recorded after April 1, 2021, making the deemed search year fall after the stipulated date. Additionally, a consolidated satisfaction note without specific adverse material was deemed not in accordance with law.
The tribunal held that a penalty cannot survive if the underlying quantum addition is absent. Since the quantum issue was remitted for re-adjudication, the penalty order was also set aside.
The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of salary and miscellaneous expenses, stating it could not have been made. However, it rejected the grounds related to payment disallowance and unsecured loans due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was vitiated because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact limb (concealment or inaccurate particulars) in the show cause notice for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while the purchases were treated as bogus, the assessee's business activities and corresponding receipts/sales were not questioned. Therefore, a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary powers under Section 263 were barred when an appeal on the same issue was pending before the appellate authority. Explanation 1(c) to Section 263 specifically prohibits such action. Therefore, the PCIT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal with the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause as the assessee claimed not to have received the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the interest component of land acquisition compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is an accretion to the value and part of enhanced compensation, not income from other sources. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions affirming this view.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied more on assumptions and presumptions than on actual incriminating material. There was no concrete evidence presented to support the allegation of on-money payment by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal restored the issue of DTAA benefits on dividend distribution tax to the Assessing Officer to await the Supreme Court's final decision on similar matters. The Tribunal also admitted additional grounds for refund claims and directed the AO to adjudicate them afresh.
The Tribunal held that the donation was not eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC because the political party had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Section 13A, specifically by not filing contribution reports. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(E) solely on the ground of non-registration of the Trust Deed with the Sub-Registrar prima facie appears to be incorrect. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Sacred Heart Church vs. CIT(E), which addressed similar issues. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) denied registration in that case for not filing the instrument in original or a copy thereof evidencing the creation of the Trust, and also questioned whether the Trust Deed should be registered. The ITAT Cochin in that case remitted the matter to the CIT(E) to examine the original Trust Deed and also held that an application for registration cannot be refused merely because the Trust Deed was not registered with the Registrar of Societies or Registrar of Documents, relying on CIT vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (Allahabad High Court) and Malli Ram Charitable Trust (ITAT Amritsar). Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for considering the legal requirement of registration of the trust deed in relation to immovable property under Section 13 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and the requirement of registration with the Charity Commissioner. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to rectify any shortcomings and then decide afresh after affording a fair hearing. The issue of registration of the Trust Deed with the Sub-Registrar was answered in favour of the assessee.
The ITAT upheld the initiation of Section 153C proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's challenge. Regarding the addition for bogus sales, the tribunal decided that a lump sum GP estimation of 1% or the declared GP rate, whichever is higher, would be appropriate, and this decision would not set a precedent.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the cash deposits were likely from available cash in hand, including bank withdrawals and cash sales from foreign currency exchange. While not fully reconciled, the Tribunal reduced the sustained addition to Rs. 2,00,000, granting the assessee relief of Rs. 14,88,000.
The Tribunal held that the worship expenses were a minuscule part of the total charitable expenditure and did not negate the charitable nature of the trust's activities. Therefore, approval under Section 80G should be granted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening initiated under the old tax regime on or after April 1, 2021, was not sustainable as the new law had come into effect. Therefore, the impugned reopening was quashed.
The tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including providing education, medical facilities, and relief to the poor, were for the benefit of the general public and not restricted to any particular religious community. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had demonstrated that the registration process for schools was not restricted to students of a particular community and that scholarships were provided to students from all communities, with the primary criterion being financial background and academic merit. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s cancellation of registration was based on the observation that the majority of beneficiaries were from a particular religious community, which the Tribunal deemed contrary to the facts. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat and the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT (E) vs. Jamiatul Bannat Tankaria, emphasizing that the expression 'any other object of general public utility' is of the widest connotation and includes all objects that promote the well-being of the general public. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the registrations granted to the assessee under Section 12A, both the original registration and the subsequent one granted under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i). The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue's arguments remained unrebutted and that there was no change in the relevant facts or the assessee's alleged activities. The learned assessing authority was granted liberty to examine all activities in appropriate proceedings as per law.