Loading ITAT cases…
140 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the extended period of limitation as per the Supreme Court's order. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the issue regarding the characterization of services and corporate guarantee fees for statistical purposes, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The disallowance of salary expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, dealing in an essential commodity, was justified in accepting SBNs for milk purchase, especially during the panic and confusion of demonetization. The notification allowed such transactions for milk booths, and the source of cash was considered bonafide.
The Tribunal held that for INR denominated debt, the benchmarking of interest should be based on domestic lending rates (PLR) applicable to the currency concerned, not foreign currency rates like LIBOR. The currency of the loan is a critical factor in determining the appropriate benchmark.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly set aside the assessment order under Section 263. The legal fees paid to ROC for increasing authorized capital were considered capital expenditure and not allowable under Section 37.
The Tribunal held that for INR denominated debt, the benchmarking of interest should be based on domestic lending rates (PLR) applicable to the currency concerned, not foreign currency rates like LIBOR. The currency of the loan is a critical factor in determining the appropriate benchmark.
The Tribunal found that SEBI, after detailed investigation, had exonerated M/s. Sanskriti Vincom Private Limited and the scrip of Kailash Auto Finance Limited, revoking earlier interim orders. Relying on a Coordinate Bench decision with identical facts, the Tribunal held that the share transactions were genuine. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted, and the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal found that SEBI, after detailed investigation, had exonerated M/s. Sanskriti Vincom Private Limited and the scrip of Kailash Auto Finance Limited, revoking earlier interim orders. Relying on a Coordinate Bench decision with identical facts, the Tribunal held that the share transactions were genuine. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted, and the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection. Hence, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposits as out of business receipts, as the declared sales were significantly higher than the deposits. Therefore, the additions made under Section 69A were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in aggregating contract receipts and advances without considering the assessee's books and treating advances as income in the same year. It also held that estimating profit on gross receipts and disallowing expenses simultaneously is contradictory. Finally, it confirmed the addition for Chapter VI-A deduction due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal heard the rival contentions and reviewed the record. It found that the assessee had indeed opted to resolve their dispute under the DTVSV, 2024, having filed Form-1 on 13.11.2024 and received Form-2 on 18.12.2024. The Revenue's Department Representative also requested the withdrawal of their appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal was inclined to allow the withdrawal of the Revenue's appeal and accordingly dismissed the appeal. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to file a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal within the prescribed time to reinstate the case if the assessee's case was not settled under the DTVSV, 2024 for any reason. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, with a conditional liberty to reinstate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs as unexplained money. It also held that the CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 115BBE for the income admitted as business income, stating that the AO should have assessed it as business income.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's explanations.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had examined the issues regarding ICDS adjustments and amortization of expenses. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and the PCIT's revisionary order was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the assessee's reply and documents. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty paid to the RBI for deviation in KYC-AML guidelines was compensatory in nature, not penal for an offense, and thus deductible under Section 37(1). The issue regarding the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) was set aside to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
The Tribunal held that the penalty paid to the RBI for deviation in KYC-AML guidelines was compensatory in nature, not penal for an offense, and thus deductible under Section 37(1). The issue regarding the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) was set aside to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
The Tribunal held that the penalty paid to the RBI for deviation in KYC-AML guidelines was compensatory in nature, not penal for an offense, and thus deductible under Section 37(1). The issue regarding the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) was set aside to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was passed pursuant to DRP directions under Section 144C(5). The Tribunal further found that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the issues raised by the PCIT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bills and proof of payment, to substantiate the expenditure. Therefore, the disallowance of expenditure under Section 69C of the Act was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the confirmation letters contained details of loans disbursed and repayments. However, a one-to-one correlation between loan disbursement and recovery needed verification. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that these 'other incomes' are incidental and integral to the main business activity of providing long-term finance and should be included in the eligible profit for computing the Section 36(1)(viii) deduction. It noted that prior ITAT decisions for earlier assessment years had affirmed this position. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the additions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty paid to the RBI for deviation in KYC-AML guidelines was compensatory in nature, not penal for an offense, and thus deductible under Section 37(1). The issue regarding the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) was set aside to the Assessing Officer for further verification.
The Tribunal held that the issue of suppressed sales was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee's arguments regarding the authenticity of digital data and duplication were not fully appreciated. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that cash expenditure is incurred out of suppressed sales. The Ld. CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 15% of the suppressed sales. The Tribunal, considering that it is nearly impossible to generate sales without incurring corresponding expenditure, and noting that the tabulated expenditure pertained to only a few branches and heads, directed the AO to estimate the income at 7.5% of the suppressed sales. This was done to meet the ends of justice, acknowledging that the actual amount of expenditure incurred out of books could not be precisely determined. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the quantum of suppressed sales was partly allowed, and the estimation of income was modified. The appeals of the assessee and the cross-objections of the Revenue were consequently partly allowed.
The Tribunal reduced the addition on suppressed sales by 5% due to errors in revenue's verification. For estimating profit on suppressed sales, it directed the AO to estimate income at 7.5% of suppressed sales, acknowledging unrecorded cash expenditure but lack of evidence for the exact amount.
The Tribunal held that there was no dispute about the fact that cash expenditure out of books had been incurred by the assessee, as confirmed by the CIT(A) based on seized materials indicating payments for branch expansion, cash incentives to employees, and advertisement expenses met from unrecorded cash sales. However, the exact amount of expenditure incurred was not brought to notice. The Tribunal, considering that it is nearly impossible to generate sales without incurring corresponding expenditure, decided to estimate the income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 15% of the suppressed sales. The Tribunal, in its considered opinion, directed the AO to estimate the income at 7.5% of the suppressed sales, considering that the average percentage of net profit earned by the assessee himself would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the estimation of income was partly allowed. The quantum of suppressed sales itself was not altered by the Tribunal, but the addition on account of it was reduced by estimating the profit margin at 7.5% instead of 15%.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a cash flow statement, cash book, and confirmation letters from debtors, to explain the cash deposit of Rs. 9,60,000/-. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the failure to file the audit report within the due date was solely attributable to technical glitches and not the assessee's fault. Therefore, the assessee should not suffer adverse consequences for reasons beyond its control.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the partner's arrest hindered compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was covered by the Supreme Court's decision extending limitation periods due to the pandemic. Therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal addressed two primary issues. Firstly, regarding the quantum of suppressed sales, the assessee contended that the data from the seized Excel sheet was inaccurate due to duplication, leading to an inflated figure. The assessee proposed reducing the suppressed sales by 50%. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument that the data might not be entirely accurate but did not accept the 50% reduction. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had confirmed the quantum of suppressed sales. Secondly, concerning the estimation of income on suppressed sales, the assessee argued for a lower net profit rate based on comparable cases and its own past performance. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide evidence for expenses incurred from suppressed sales. The CIT(A) had initially confirmed the addition at 15% of the suppressed sales, acknowledging cash expenses. The Tribunal, considering that cash expenditure out of books was incurred but the exact amount was not proven, directed the AO to estimate the income at 7.5% of the suppressed sales, finding this to be in the ends of justice. This decision partly allowed the assessee's ground regarding the estimation of profit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's inability to access documents was due to a genuine dispute regarding premises belonging to TTD, and there was a pending appeal before the Supreme Court. The CIT(A) erroneously concluded the adjournment was sought on a false statement without proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the issue of suppressed sales was a matter of fact and evidence. Regarding the quantum of suppressed sales, the assessee argued that the seized Excel sheet contained duplicated data and that the actual suppressed sales should be considered at 50% of the AO's calculation. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO had identified cash expenditures related to suppressed sales, such as for branch expansion, incentives, and advertisements, totaling Rs. 4,12,53,102/-. The CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 15% of the suppressed sales. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of unrecorded cash expenditure, directed the AO to estimate the income at 7.5% of the suppressed sales, thus partly allowing the assessee's ground. This decision was applied to all assessment years. The revenue's cross-objections were also partly allowed in line with the partial allowance of the assessee's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the issue of suppressed sales was confirmed by the CIT(A) at Rs. 14,41,96,147/-. Regarding the estimation of income on suppressed sales, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 15% of the suppressed sales, acknowledging that some cash expenses were incurred. The Tribunal, considering the findings of the AO and CIT(A) regarding unrecorded cash expenditure for branch expansion, incentives, and advertisement, directed the AO to estimate the income at 7.5% of the suppressed sales. This decision was based on the principle that it is nearly impossible to generate sales without incurring corresponding expenditure. Consequently, the assessee's ground regarding the estimation of income was partly allowed. The appeals for all assessment years were decided on similar lines.
The Tribunal reduced the addition on suppressed sales by 5% due to errors in revenue's verification. For estimating profit on suppressed sales, it directed the AO to estimate income at 7.5% of suppressed sales, acknowledging unrecorded cash expenditure but lack of evidence for the exact amount.
The assessee wished to withdraw the appeal as relief was already obtained. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered the issue of suppressed sales and the estimation of profit on such sales. It also examined the revenue's cross-objections regarding the confirmation of suppressed sales based on seized evidence and the profit estimation.
The Tribunal held that the issue of suppressed sales was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee's arguments regarding the authenticity of digital data and duplication were not fully appreciated. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that cash expenditure is incurred out of suppressed sales. The Ld. CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 15% of the suppressed sales. The Tribunal, considering that it is nearly impossible to generate sales without incurring corresponding expenditure, and noting that the tabulated expenditure pertained to only a few branches and heads, directed the AO to estimate the income at 7.5% of the suppressed sales. This was done to meet the ends of justice, acknowledging that the actual amount of expenditure incurred out of books could not be precisely determined. Therefore, the assessee's ground regarding the quantum of suppressed sales was partly allowed, and the estimation of income was modified. The appeals of the assessee and the cross-objections of the Revenue were consequently partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of suppressed sales was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), but the addition was restricted to 15% of the suppressed sales. The Tribunal noted that the AO had identified cash expenditure out of suppressed sales, though the exact amount was not ascertainable. The Ld. CIT(A) had directed the AO to estimate income at 7.5% of the suppressed sales, considering the assessee's own average net profit percentage. The Tribunal agreed with this approach, stating that it would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the addition was to be made at 7.5% of the suppressed sales. The appeals of the assessee and the cross-objections of the Revenue were partly allowed. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the jurisdiction issue raised in the revenue's cross-objection, but proceeded to decide the substantive issues.
The Tribunal held that the estimation of income at 12% by the learned CIT(A) was not just and proper. The Tribunal noted that the AO had initially estimated income at 16% on a portion of deposits, excluding the demonetization period, and treated demonetization period deposits as unaccounted income under Section 69A, taxed under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) then directed a 12% profit on total cash deposits. The Tribunal accepted that the cash deposits were business receipts and that the assessee's turnover was less than Rs. 1 Crore, making Section 44AD applicable. Under Section 44AD, where books of account are not maintained or not mandated to be maintained, income is to be estimated at a reasonable rate. Considering the business activity and the provisions of Section 44AD, the Tribunal found it just and proper to estimate the rate of profit at 8% on the cash deposits of Rs. 53,82,500/-, as against the 12% estimated by the CIT(A). The assessee did not press other grounds. The appeal was allowed in part.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reliance on previous judgments was misplaced as they did not consider the Explanation to Section 80IA(8) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee itself had benchmarked the transactions using the CUP method.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not considering the revised Return of Income filed before the completion of assessment. All relevant information submitted during assessment proceedings must be considered fairly. The rejection of the assessee's claim made in a revised ROI before assessment completion violates legal requirements.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from temporary parking of surplus export business funds is directly relatable to the export business and therefore eligible for exemption under Section 10A. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to comply with a previous order regarding the treatment of certain reversed provisions and recoveries.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore, could not be sustained. The Tribunal noted that even in the absence of the assessee, the CIT(A) has the power to decide the matter on merits rather than dismissing it in limine. The CIT(A) should have addressed the points for determination and provided cogent reasons for the decision, which was conspicuously absent in the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) without seeking adjournments, and the CIT(A) was instructed to consider the documents filed by the assessee and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds of appeal were treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's arguments regarding the accuracy of the seized Excel sheet and the net profit percentage. The revenue's cross-objections were also examined in relation to the suppressed sales and profit estimation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's returns of income for earlier years (2015-16 and 2019-20) and evidence related to agricultural land holdings of the assessee's father. The matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee. It remanded the issues of book profit computation and leave encashment deduction to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The issue of double addition on interest income was also remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act, as it failed to provide reasons for the decision. The assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the deposit was from a loan and her readiness to furnish evidence. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh examination, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all necessary information and documents.