Loading ITAT cases…
1,031 orders · Page 10 of 21
The Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 3% of the alleged bogus purchases/sales. This disallowance is to be treated as just and proper and not as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the date of search for the assessee is 05.04.2022, which falls in AY 2023-24. Therefore, the block period should be reckoned from AY 2023-24, making AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 fall outside the block period.
The Tribunal held that the date of search for the assessee is 05.04.2022, which falls in AY 2023-24. Therefore, the block period should be reckoned from AY 2023-24, making AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 fall outside the block period.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have submitted substantial documents, including reconciliation of receipts. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's cash deposits were explainable from business proceeds, but the assessee was not eligible for the presumptive tax scheme under Section 44AD due to turnover exceeding the limit. An ad-hoc addition of Rs. 3,00,000 was made as business income, and the addition on account of unaccounted sales was deleted.
The Tribunal held that offshore supply profits are not taxable in India if property and title pass outside India, and payments are received outside India. It also held that reimbursements of expatriate salary costs to a related entity do not constitute taxable income in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) cannot be made for short deduction of TDS; the appropriate course of action is to invoke Section 201. Therefore, the PCIT's direction for disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 233 days in filing all four appeals, acknowledging the severe mental and physical trauma the assessee underwent, including complex brain surgeries and family disputes. Regarding the merits of the additions, the Tribunal found that while the assessee did make some compliance before the AO, their ability to present their case was hampered by their medical condition. The Tribunal expressed sympathy for the assessee's situation. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to present all necessary documents before the CIT(A), who may, if required, call for a remand report from the AO. The issue of assumption of jurisdiction was not expressly decided, but the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the full exemption of leave encashment as the amount claimed is below the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000 prescribed by the CBDT. The AO is directed to allow the assessee's claim.
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 decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 3% of the alleged bogus purchases as a gross profit. This disallowance is not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had over-exercised its power under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the AO had duly considered the assessee's reply and documents during the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) and had applied his mind before accepting the returned income on 28.09.2019. The subsequent show cause notice, issued after a significant delay of four years, did not clearly specify a mistake apparent from the record. Furthermore, the order passed under Section 154 on 18.03.2024 was not a rectification of an error apparent from the face of the record, but rather involved further calculations and considerations that were not part of the original assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 154 is meant for rectifying obvious and patent mistakes, not for revising an opinion or re-examining issues that were already decided. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's counsel could not satisfy the bench that there were any apparent errors from the record, and that referencing documents outside the record or re-interpreting the law is impermissible under Section 154. Therefore, the order passed under Section 154 was quashed. The issue of whether the FTC calculation was correct based on income rather than receipts was not decided on merits, as the primary issue was the validity of the Section 154 proceedings.
The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was due to the possibility of communication gaps in the new virtual hearing mechanism, in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal sustained the addition made by the AO for the purchases admitted by the assessee. However, regarding the enhanced addition by the CIT(A), the Tribunal held that the Revenue must provide credible evidence to the assessee to prove purchases beyond the admitted amount, and therefore, set aside the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's ex parte decision was not on merits and restored the appeals to the NFAC for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) issued by the DCIT was a jurisdictional defect, rendering the assessment void ab initio, following the Bombay High Court's decision. The assessment proceedings were declared bad in law.
The tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the present appeal.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 143(2) issued by the ACIT instead of an ITO, given the returned income was below Rs. 20 lakhs, was a jurisdictional defect. This defect is not curable and renders the assessment void ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's ex parte decision was not on merits and restored the appeals to the NFAC for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal.
The Tribunal found that the demand arose due to bona fide reporting errors and that a revised audit report was available. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's difficulty in uploading documents but found the 8% estimation excessive. It directed the AO to re-calculate the addition at 3% of gross receipts to bring the matter to a close.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal first addressed the issue of limitation. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, and the Tribunal found the contents of the application to be genuine. Therefore, the delay of approximately 240 days was condoned. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that effect had been given to the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) by the DCIT, Circle 3(1) Gurugram, vide an order dated 25.02.2026. As a result, the appeal filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had become infructuous. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was liable to be withdrawn and accordingly dismissed it as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original assessment or the CIT(A)'s order, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by citing the principle of substantial justice. It further held that the assessee, being an employee of a nationalized bank, is eligible for the full leave encashment exemption up to the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000, as the amount claimed was within this limit.
The Tribunal held that the FAO could not have assumed jurisdiction to frame the reassessment on March 15, 2022, as the relevant scheme was notified only on March 29, 2022. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that offshore supply profits are not taxable in India if property and title pass outside India, and payments are received outside India. It also held that reimbursements of expatriate salary costs to a related entity do not constitute taxable income in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the interest income on enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not taxable, even after statutory amendments. The action of the lower authorities in taxing this interest income was reversed.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) cannot be made for short deduction of TDS; the appropriate course of action is to invoke Section 201. Therefore, the PCIT's direction for disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 233 days in filing all four appeals, acknowledging the severe mental and physical trauma the assessee underwent, including complex brain surgeries and family disputes. Regarding the merits of the additions, the Tribunal found that while the assessee did make some compliance before the AO, their ability to present their case was hampered by their medical condition. The Tribunal expressed sympathy for the assessee's situation. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matters back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to present all necessary documents before the CIT(A), who may, if required, call for a remand report from the AO. The issue of assumption of jurisdiction was not expressly decided, but the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was not sustainable. The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal by remitting the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for consideration afresh. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, consider the case made out by the assessee, and pass a reasoned order. This reasoned order should be based on the evidence on record or any other evidence the assessee may choose to file during the hearing. The Tribunal rejected the application seeking adjournment. The principle derived is that an ex-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing is liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be added back when sales and closing stock have been accepted by the AO. The reasoning is that purchases are required for sales, and the possibility of procuring goods from the grey market and obtaining bogus bills to match purchases cannot be ruled out. Following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in PC/T vs. Mohd. Haji Adam & Co., the addition for bogus purchases is restricted to the Gross Profit (GP) rate declared by the assessee on genuine purchases. The assessee declared a GP rate of 6.76%, and the addition was restricted to 7% of the alleged bogus purchases of ₹39,35,137/-. Regarding the addition of ₹78,703/- under Section 69C for alleged commission, the Tribunal held that it was made on surmises and conjectures without corroborative material and directed its deletion. Ground No. 6 of the appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the addition of ₹10,98,000 under Section 69A, the Tribunal accepted cash deposits of ₹1,40,000 from salary income and ₹3,00,000 from cash gifts received from the grandfather, Shri Jai Prakash Jain, for parity with the decision in Pranay Jain's case and based on confirmations provided. The remaining addition of ₹6,58,000 was confirmed. The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 115BBE of the Act, as per the Madras High Court's decision in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, comes into effect from April 1, 2017, making the un-amended provisions applicable to the impugned assessment year 2017-18. Therefore, the ground challenging the invocation of Section 115BBE was implicitly accepted in favor of the assessee for the assessment year in question, though the operative part of the order focuses on the Section 69A addition.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the appeal itself on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal acknowledged the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay, as seen in cases like Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Ram Nath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others. However, it emphasized that this liberal approach is applicable only when there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant and the cause shown is bona fide. The Tribunal found that while the illness and death of the assessee's mother explained a part of the delay, a significant period of over 300 days remained unexplained. Citing N. Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, the Tribunal stated that the acceptability of the explanation is the criterion, not just the length of the delay. The Tribunal further referred to Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh, highlighting that a valuable right accrues to the other party due to the failure to explain delay, and taking away that right due to negligence or inaction would be unreasonable. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's application lacked sufficient cause, demonstrating negligence and inaction, and therefore, the delay could not be condoned.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹2,37,235/- made by the Assessing Officer, treating the entire sale consideration as unexplained credit under Section 68, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment order lacked specific findings linking the assessee or their broker to price rigging or circular trading of shares, relying only on a generic explanation of 'penny stock'. The CIT(A) had endorsed the AO's findings without examining the transaction. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of determining the 'capital gain' on the sale of shares after allowing the benefit of the cost of acquisition, in accordance with law. The Tribunal did not decide the issue of whether the shares were indeed 'penny stock' or if the capital gain was artificial.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee issued a receipt for cash against a cheque, and the cheque number matched the sale deed, the exact nature of the transaction and the reason for cash receipt remained unanswered. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided a proper opportunity before rejecting the initial applications and that conditional registration under Section 12AB is not permissible. The Tribunal directed the grant of registration without conditions and remitted the 80G approval matter back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided a proper opportunity before rejecting the initial applications and that conditional registration under Section 12AB is not permissible. The Tribunal directed the grant of registration without conditions and remitted the 80G approval matter back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the cash deposits by showing withdrawals from the bank and that the AO had not pointed out any discrepancies in the audited accounts. The addition of Rs. 29,50,000 was deleted, and grounds related to it were allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that ex-parte orders were passed by both lower authorities. To ensure natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided a proper opportunity before rejecting the initial applications and that conditional registration under Section 12AB is not permissible. The Tribunal directed the grant of registration without conditions and remitted the 80G approval matter back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that Section 69C is applicable only when the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation about the source of expenditure. In this case, the expenditure was reflected in the assessee's books, payments were made through banking channels, and the assessee had sufficient reserves. Therefore, the addition under Section 69C was not sustainable.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for certain issues and remanded them back to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication. For other issues, the Tribunal confirmed the lower authorities' orders or dismissed the grounds.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹10,66,400 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal observed that the assessment was reopened based on information from the Insight Portal, which originated from a search and seizure operation on Elan Group. While the assessee did not dispute the purchase of a shop from Elan Ltd., they denied making a cash payment of ₹10,66,400. The AO made the addition based on estimations derived from documents seized during the search on Elan Group. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not refer to any incriminating material found and seized that specifically pertained to the assessee. The Tribunal's reasoning was that no addition can be made on estimations based on documents seized in the case of a third party, especially in the absence of any incriminating material relating to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for jewellery, considering it within the prescribed limits for a married lady. The addition for gold bullion was also deleted based on the principle of telescoping with other undisclosed income.
The ITAT held that the assessee had demonstrated 'sufficient cause' for the four-month delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had pursued a rectification under Section 154 of the Act before approaching the first appellate authority. Citing pronouncements from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, the Tribunal emphasized that acceptance of explanations for delay should be the rule and refusal an exception, especially when no negligence or want of bona fide can be imputed to the party. A pedantic and hyper-technical view should not be adopted, and the expression 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed to subserve the ends of justice. Consequently, the delay of four months was condoned. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present submissions. The issue of disallowance under Section 80P(2)(d) and exemption on collections from members was expressly left undecided by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C is applicable only when the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation about the source of expenditure. In this case, the expenditure was reflected in the assessee's books, payments were made through banking channels, and the assessee had sufficient reserves. Therefore, the addition under Section 69C was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the AO's calculation of closing stock was based on an incorrect arithmetic movement rather than script-wise movement. It also found that since the assessee earned no exempt income, Section 14A was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C is applicable only when the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation about the source of expenditure. In this case, the expenditure was reflected in the assessee's books, payments were made through banking channels, and the assessee had sufficient reserves. Therefore, the addition under Section 69C was not sustainable.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for certain issues and remanded them back to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication. For other issues, the Tribunal confirmed the lower authorities' orders or dismissed the grounds.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an AO who lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid notice was quashed.