Loading ITAT cases…
146 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal held that the DIN was generated within the limitation period and the assessment order was validly passed. It also directed verification and allowance of foreign tax credit. However, the disallowance of employee PF contributions due to delayed deposit was upheld following the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal held that in cases of concluded assessments, additions cannot be made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act unless incriminating material is found during the search. A statement made during the search, without corroborating evidence, does not constitute incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that the DIN was generated within the limitation period and the assessment order was validly passed. It also directed verification and allowance of foreign tax credit. However, the disallowance of employee PF contributions due to delayed deposit was upheld following the Supreme Court's decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the inordinate delay of 510 days in filing the appeal was not plausible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of limitation.
The ITAT, acknowledging the CIT(A)'s discretion under Section 249(3) and considering the charitable nature of the trust and reasons for delay (COVID Pandemic, unawareness of assessment order), held that a liberal approach should have been adopted. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and dispose of the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal noted the undisputed difference in depreciation but observed that the assessee had furnished evidence regarding additions to fixed assets, which the CIT(A) ignored. It held that the matter required fresh verification by the Assessing Officer, considering the ITR, Form 3CD, and the bills for fixed asset additions.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of property was complete on the date of the sale deed execution and presentation for registration, not on the later date of actual registration. It also found that partition of property does not amount to a transfer for tax purposes.
The Tribunal found the AO's methodology for disallowing expenses to be arbitrary and lacking a cogent basis, especially when the assessee was in a pre-revenue stage. The Tribunal set aside the matter back to the AO for re-adjudication, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity and consider all documentary evidence as per the mandate of law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemptions) summarily rejected the application without considering the assessee's request for adjournment or the submissions/documents uploaded before the order was passed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be afforded to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal held that partition of property does not amount to a transfer of right, title, or interest from jointly held owners to separate members. Each sharer has an antecedent title, and no conveyance is involved as a new title is not conferred. This principle is supported by various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, including Gutta Radhakrishnayya v. Gutta Saravamma, M.K. Stremann v. CIT, CIT v. Keshavilal Lallubhai Patel, and Rajkumar Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax. Therefore, the CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition could be made on this count. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning partition. Regarding the issue of the consolidated satisfaction note under Section 153C, the Tribunal noted that since it had reached a conclusion on the merits of the case regarding the deletion of additions based on the relinquishment deed, partition deed, and the AY 2014-15 transaction, any discussion on the satisfaction note would be academic. Therefore, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this specific issue. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim before the AO and the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal also found that the AO did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce documentary evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for re-adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a sale deed's registration date does not determine the year of taxation; it relates back to the execution date. It also held that a partition of property is not a transfer of interest but a division of joint holding, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additions made based on a combined satisfaction note were deemed invalid if not year-specific.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(E) did not identify specific activities that were not charitable, despite the assessee's financial and annual reports indicating substantial charitable expenditures and activities. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed a reconsideration of the registration under Section 80G, taking into account the presented material.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 25,19,900/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 due to the assessee's failure to substantiate the source. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to grant relief for the separate addition of Rs. 4,53,980/- representing declared net profit, as this amount was deemed subsumed within the larger addition of total cash credits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a letter dated 03.03.2025 requesting permission to withdraw the appeals, citing settlement under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The assessee's counsel further submitted at the Bar that once the additions made by the Assessing Officer were settled under the Scheme, any penalty levied on such additions would not survive. Consequently, the appeal against the penalty also did not survive and should be dismissed as withdrawn. The Learned DR had no objection to this submission. The Tribunal, considering the assessee's letter and the counsel's statement, dismissed both appeals (ITA.Nos.856 & 956/Hyd/2024) as withdrawn. The Tribunal also clarified that if the settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, is not accepted by the Department for any reason, the assessee would be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application to reinstate the appeals within the prescribed time limit. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging that the underlying dispute and related penalty had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the assessee to file a Miscellaneous Application for reinstatement if the settlement under the scheme is not accepted by the department.
The Tribunal held that while there was a delay of 18 days in filing the return of income and audit report (filed on March 3, 2021, instead of the extended due date of February 15, 2021), the audit report in Form-10B was made available to the Assessing Officer before the assessment order was passed on May 12, 2022. Considering the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation, which significantly impacted normal life, the Tribunal found that the small delay should have been condoned by the authorities below. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the benefit of exemption under Section 11 as claimed by the assessee-trust. The ratio decidendi is that in exceptional circumstances like a pandemic, minor delays in filing returns and audit reports, if explained and if the report is available before assessment, should be condoned to allow genuine claims for exemption under Section 11.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) followed a Special Bench decision in *Hyderabad Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Others*. This precedent established that for Indian Rupee-denominated CCDs, the interest should be benchmarked using the domestic Prime Lending Rate (PLR) like SBI PLR, not LIBOR. Accordingly, the ITAT directed the AO/TPO to delete the transfer pricing adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the debt forgiveness, arising from a settlement agreement, was essentially a loan and not business income. Therefore, it could not be taxed under Section 28(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not comply with the legal requirement under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates stating the points for determination, reasons thereon, and reasons for the decision in writing. Therefore, the matter requires reconciliation.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment for AY 2011-12 was unabated at the time of search, the assessee could not make fresh claims for expenditure. The forgiveness of debt was assessed for AY 2010-11, so its assessment for AY 2011-12 on a protective basis was not sustained.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be withdrawn, as conceded by the DR. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to file a Miscellaneous Petition to reinstate the appeal if their case is not accepted under the Vivad Se Viswas scheme.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided credible evidence, including agricultural income and a confirmation email from her brother, to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) could not be upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal, adopting a judicious and liberal approach, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- for unexplained investments in properties, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to deal with the assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds, summarily approving the AO's order. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have deliberated on the explanation instead of adopting an evasive approach. Similarly, concerning the addition of Rs. 44,00,000/- for unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had culled out the assessee's submissions regarding the source from agricultural produce but failed to provide any reasoning for not dealing with them. The Tribunal concluded that the failure of the CIT(A) to deal with the assessee's explanation could not be endorsed and that the matter required re-adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate both issues after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the unregistered agreement to purchase, without registration as per the amended Registration Act, 1908, did not entitle the assessee to the exemption under Section 54F. The Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was found to be justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was unable to participate in earlier proceedings due to medical reasons, hospitalization, and issues with mail communication exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the ground of non-compliance with the last notice. Since the assessee had complied with earlier notices and faced technical issues with the last notice, an opportunity should have been given.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly ascertaining the correct facts regarding the service of the assessment order. Given that the CIT(A) had previously called for remand reports, they should have investigated the service date further before dismissing the appeal on limitation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of the cash. The explanation that it was accumulated business receipts was an afterthought and not supported by any documentary evidence. Therefore, the addition of the entire cash under Section 69A and taxation under Section 115BBE were upheld.
The Tribunal considered the remand report and the CIT(A)'s findings. It noted that the assessee's inability to produce complete records was due to a change in management via corporate restructuring. The Tribunal found no error or illegality in the CIT(A)'s order, which had estimated expenses and disallowed 30% of transmission charges, allowed the loan processing fee, and disallowed 50% of other miscellaneous expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.