Loading ITAT cases…
185 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard by both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the period of limitation. Following the Delhi High Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal ruled that the date of uploading the DRP's directions on the ITBA portal determines the start of the limitation period.
The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated years require incriminating material, which was not sufficiently demonstrated by the Revenue. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A)'s relief was subject to AO's verification, which was subsequently done.
The Tribunal held that the assessee JV is eligible to claim credit for the TDS deducted on gross contract receipts. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in withdrawing the TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing evidence of the investor company's identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions. The AO's reasons for addition, such as common addresses and directors, were found to be devoid of merit.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the purchases genuine. It reasoned that the lack of e-way bills was justified as the goods were GST-exempt, and the direct delivery to farmers was a legitimate business practice for integration. Non-disclosure of related party transactions in Form 3CD was not considered fatal.
The Tribunal found that for the first issue concerning share capital, the documents on which the CIT(A) was satisfied were not produced before the AO. While the CIT(A) called for a remand report, the AO did not respond. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the amounts were received in earlier financial years (2013-14 and 2008-09) but could not provide a satisfactory bifurcation or explanation for the delay in allotment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to call for a remand report from the AO and pass an order accordingly. For the second issue regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8% without considering that the assessee failed to produce supporting documents for all purchases, the supplier denied the transactions, and the CIT(A) failed to mention the details of the remand report called. Consequently, this issue was also set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to call for a fresh remand report from the AO and pass an order as per law. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the final determination of the additions.
The Tribunal noted that for the first issue concerning share capital, the documents on which the CIT(A) was satisfied were not produced before the AO. While the CIT(A) claimed to have called a remand report, the AO did not respond, and the CIT(A)'s order lacked details about the remand report. Furthermore, the assessee could not provide satisfactory replies regarding the receipt of share application money in earlier financial years and the delay in allotment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside this issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to call for a remand report from the AO and pass an order accordingly. For the second issue regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 8% without considering that the assessee failed to produce supporting documents for all purchases, the proprietor of SSST denied the transactions, and the business dealing was only for a part of the year. Similar to the first issue, the CIT(A) failed to provide details of the remand report. Therefore, this issue was also set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to call for a fresh remand report from the AO and pass an order as per law. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement in creating infrastructure facilities, like dams and ponds, with associated risks, qualified them as a developer eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The nature of the project, even if not a typical BOT/BOOT model, did not preclude them from being considered a developer.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had produced sufficient evidence for her discounting business, and the AO's rejection of books and estimation was based on conjectures. However, considering the lack of explicit regulatory approval for the LC discounting business, a partial addition was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, recognizing the reasonable cause due to the assessee's illness (Covid-19) and the tax consultant's failure. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Pathapati Subba Reddy, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid on customer advances was for the purpose of the assessee's business, as the funds received were utilized in the real estate development business. The Tribunal found that the AO erred in disallowing the finance charges without valid reasons and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the information received from the Commercial Tax Officer regarding short payment of VAT/CST does not constitute information about an offense committed by the assessee. The short payment itself is not an offense, and the Assessing Officer had doubts about the genuineness of the payment. Therefore, the case did not fall under the exceptions provided by the CBDT circular for deciding appeals on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to alleged cash consideration for property rights, finding that the properties were never owned by the assessee and were ultimately purchased by another group company. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had deleted additions under Section 68 after the assessee proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of investors.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that once these aspects are proven, additions under Section 68 are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by filing complete details of the investor company, including name, address, PAN, financial statements, bank statements, and confirmation letters, thereby proving the identity, genuineness of transactions, and creditworthiness. The investment was routed from bank account to bank account, with no evidence of cash deposit by the investor immediately prior to the transfer. The Tribunal noted that affidavits from the investor's directors confirmed the investment, and their statements were not conclusive proof against the assessee. It was also observed that the AO failed to examine the directors of the investor company, M/s Surbhi Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. (which is a separate issue from Falcon Jersey in the judgment excerpt, but the principle applies), despite them being directors at the time of assessment. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions in CIT vs. Lovely Exports and Pr. CIT vs. Chain House International (P) Ltd., and Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., and Gujarat High Court's decision in DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders, which state that once identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness are established, additions under Section 68 cannot be made solely because the investor did not respond to notices or was found to be a paper company. The Tribunal found that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with M/s Surbhi Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. (the specific company discussed in the latter part of the judgment). Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the valuation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer was submitted beyond the stipulated 60-day period as per Section 132(9D). Therefore, no additions could be made based on that report.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the valuation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer was submitted beyond the stipulated 60-day period as per Section 132(9D). Therefore, no additions could be made based on that report.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was purely legal and went to the root of the matter. It held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the valuation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer was submitted beyond the stipulated 60-day period as per Section 132(9D). Therefore, no additions could be made based on that report.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was purely legal and went to the root of the matter. It held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was purely legal and went to the root of the matter. It held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the valuation report relied upon by the Assessing Officer was submitted beyond the stipulated 60-day period as per Section 132(9D). Therefore, no additions could be made based on that report.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not consider the correct facts regarding the derivative transactions and the cash sales. The cash sales for November were supported by invoices and VAT returns, and the CIT(A) overemphasized a typographical error. The matter of cash deposits and share loss was remanded for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was purely legal and went to the root of the matter. It held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for clinical trials incurred outside approved R&D facilities is allowable, following precedent. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow additional depreciation as per the DRP's directions.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal for final settlement of tax issues under the DTVSV. If the disputes are not settled under DTVSV, the assessee may seek revival of appeals, subject to limitation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's petition for condonation of delay and the supporting affidavit. The delay of 55 days was condoned, and since the assessment order was ex-parte and the appeal was not decided on merits by the CIT(A), the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. It also directed the AO to examine the claim for deduction under Section 80G for donations and delete the addition made under Section 41(1) as the assessee had not derived any benefit from cessation of liability.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, allowing telescopic benefit for declared income against cash and accepting appreciation in jewellery value over time. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in allowing the telescopic benefit and in deleting additions for jewellery.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had successfully discharged the initial onus by providing details of the investor company, its financial statements, and bank transactions. The Tribunal noted that the investment was routed through banking channels and the investor company had established its sources.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investor. Regarding the land purchase, the Tribunal followed its own previous decision, stating that the evidence relied upon by the AO lacked substantive evidentiary value to make additions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary power under Section 263 cannot be exercised merely due to a difference of opinion with the Assessing Officer regarding the sufficiency of inquiry. The Assessing Officer had considered the assessee's financial capacity based on filed returns.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, allowing telescopic benefit for declared income against cash and accepting appreciation in jewellery value over time. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in allowing the telescopic benefit and in deleting additions for jewellery.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing complete details of the investor company, including its identity, PAN, financial statements, bank statements, and confirmation letters. The transactions were sourced from bank accounts, and there was no evidence of cash deposits by the investor company prior to the transfer. Affidavits from the investor company's directors confirmed the investment, and the Assessing Officer had failed to examine these directors. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions in CIT vs. Lovely Exports, Pr. CIT vs. Chain House International (P) Ltd., and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd., and Gujarat High Court's decision in DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders. These judgments establish that once the identity, genuineness of transactions, and creditworthiness of the creditor are proved, the sum received cannot be treated as income under Section 68. The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were different from the case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer, such as PCIT Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Private Ltd. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer erred in making additions under Section 68 and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not file a return under Section 139(1), the assessment was reopened under Section 147. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC), the Tribunal noted that in reassessment proceedings, an assessee cannot make a fresh claim for deduction or exemption. However, if the exemption or deduction pertains to income escaping assessment, there is no restriction on claiming deductions like Section 54F against long-term capital gains derived from a JDA and reported in a return filed in response to a Section 148 notice, provided the conditions for construction completion within the time specified under Section 54F are satisfied. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence to prove the fulfillment of Section 54F conditions, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The AO was directed to reconsider the claim in light of the Tribunal's observations and the Supreme Court's decision in Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd., deciding the issue based on facts and law. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
For the Nellore property, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to refer the fair market value determination to the DVO, as the assessee was not given an opportunity to contest the SRO value. For the Jubilee Hills property, the Tribunal, relying on a coordinate bench's decision for a co-owner, held that the interest expense on a loan used to clear a prior loan for property acquisition had a direct nexus and was allowable under Section 48, directing its deletion.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investor. Regarding the land purchase, the Tribunal followed its own previous decision, stating that the evidence relied upon by the AO lacked substantive evidentiary value to make additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing complete details of the investor company, including PAN, financial statements, and bank statements. The Tribunal noted that the investment was routed through banking channels and that the investor company had established sources for the investment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient evidence regarding the investor's identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient evidence regarding the investor's identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient evidence regarding the investor's identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 202 days, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the second order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in faceless proceedings was a duplication of the earlier order and was not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) erred by not calling for a remand report under Rule 46A when new documents were presented for the first time. Consequently, both the quantum appeal related to the addition and the consequential penalty appeal under Section 271AAC were set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) erred by not calling for a remand report under Rule 46A when new documents were presented for the first time. Consequently, both the quantum appeal related to the addition and the consequential penalty appeal under Section 271AAC were set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's illiteracy and lack of prior experience with tax proceedings. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh assessment on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred by treating entire bank credits as income without verifying their nature. A significant portion of the credits comprised of maturity proceeds of LIC policies, FD encashment, and loans. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's explanation for non-participation due to her son's medical emergency.
The Tribunal found that the learned CIT(E) passed cryptic orders without providing cogent reasons for rejecting the applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee society educates and involves the public in waste management to restore ecological balance, which aligns with the fundamental duty enshrined in Article 51A of the Constitution of India to protect and improve the natural environment. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not doubt the genuineness of the assessee's activities. Therefore, finding no merit in the CIT(E)'s orders, the Tribunal directed the learned CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G in the interest of justice and to maintain ecological balance for future generations. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.