Loading ITAT cases…
296 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of estimating profit on unaccounted business receipts. It noted that the AO considered loose sheets and Excel sheets containing details of unaccounted receipts and expenditure. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 15% on total unaccounted business receipts, relying on judicial precedents like Skanda Infra Projects India Private Limited and Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. However, the Tribunal found that the profit rates adopted in these precedents varied, and the facts of those cases were different. The Supreme Court's decision in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali was cited, emphasizing that estimation must be based on a scientific, reasonable, and non-arbitrary method. The Tribunal observed that neither the CIT(A) nor the assessee provided valid reasons for their respective profit estimations (15% by CIT(A) and 7% by assessee). While the assessee's book results (average profit rate of 6.90%) could not be the sole basis due to unaccounted transactions, the Tribunal considered the nature of the business and the incriminating material. Citing the ITAT Hyderabad Bench decision in Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, where profit was estimated at 10% in an identical real estate development case, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% on the total unaccounted business receipts for all assessment years. The order of the CIT(A) estimating profit at 15% was set aside. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 30,00,000 in the hands of the assessee under section 69A of the Act was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's son, Mr. N. Lakshmikanth, had admitted to transferring Rs. 30 lakhs to his father on March 15, 2017, from his bank account. This amount was sourced from a credit of Rs. 35 lakhs received via RTGS from 'AIM DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS-N' on March 14, 2017. The Tribunal reasoned that the explanation of the son regarding the source of the amount paid to the assessee was substantiated because the Rs. 30 lakhs was sourced from his bank account, which had a substantial credit the day before the transfer. Crucially, the Tribunal pointed out that the '1st Proviso' to Section 68, which requires an explanation for the source of credit, was introduced only from April 1, 2023, and was not applicable to AY 2017-18. Therefore, the AO could not have looked into the 'source of source' for the Rs. 35 lakhs. The Tribunal also questioned the applicability of Section 69A, stating that a credit entry in a bank account does not fall within the definition of 'money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article' as contemplated by Section 69A. The addition, if any, should have been considered under Section 69. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs was vacated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 680 days in filing the appeal, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits. Regarding the merits of the case, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition under Section 69A because the assessee had not declared any cash in hand in the income tax returns for the relevant assessment years and had not provided full details of the HUF accounts and cash flow statements. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition in the absence of the assessee's representation. Considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the complete details and evidence filed by the assessee and provide a proper opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order. The issue of whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice was implicitly addressed by remanding the case for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity. The specific issue of the addition under Section 69A was not decided on merits but was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) cannot be denied merely because of a delay in filing Form-67. The Tribunal noted that the fact of payment of foreign tax was not in dispute. It referred to a series of its own decisions, including Smt. Sonali Verma, Shri Sridharan Venkatanarayanan, and Shri Suresh Kumar Vobbilisetty, which consistently held that denial of FTC solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form-67 is not justified, especially when the form was available before the processing authority. The Tribunal also cited the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. CIT for the principle of following precedents in favour of the assessee in case of divergent views. The Tribunal observed that Rule 128(9) of the Income-tax Rules has been amended to allow filing of Form-67 on or before the end of the Assessment Year, addressing this anomaly. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the FTC claim to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the grounds challenging the validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Act and the consequential reassessment proceedings are dismissed. The Tribunal found that the subsequent notice dated 26.07.2022 was issued within the surviving period and rejected the assessee's contentions regarding procedural infirmities in the issuance of the notice and assumption of jurisdiction by the AO. Regarding the addition on merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had specifically denied making the investment and claimed the demat account was operated by his employer's associates. The Tribunal found that the matter required deeper factual verification concerning the underlying documentary evidence, such as demat account records, contract notes, bank statements, and details of fund sources and transfers. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue relating to the addition of Rs. 78,01,964/- under Section 69 of the Act to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for necessary verification and a speaking order, while affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated it had not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the assessee's explanation or the sustainability of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish 'sufficient cause' for condoning the inordinate delay of 429 days. The Tribunal noted that while a liberal approach is generally adopted for condonation of delay, it cannot dispense with the requirement of establishing a reasonable, bona fide, and satisfactory explanation. In this case, the assessee's sole explanation was a general assertion of being a small taxpayer unfamiliar with online procedures, unsupported by any evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized the assessee's consistent non-compliance throughout the assessment proceedings (failure to file return under Section 148, not responding to notices, including a physical notice) and the first appellate proceedings (failure to respond to notices from Ld. CIT(A)), as well as before the Tribunal (non-appearance on two hearing dates). This conduct demonstrated negligence and inaction, rather than circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions in P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala [(1997) 7 SCC 556], Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81], and Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) (dated 08.04.2024), which reiterated that the law of limitation must be applied with rigor, and delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without sufficient cause. The Tribunal found the assessee's relied-upon precedents distinguishable. Consequently, the petitions for condonation of delay were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits. This was granted as a final opportunity, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The matter was restored to the AO to verify the eligibility of each assessee as per the statutory requirements.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The matter was restored to the AO to verify the eligibility of each assessee as per the statutory requirements.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The matter was restored to the AO to verify the eligibility of each assessee as per the statutory requirements.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The matter was restored to the AO to verify the eligibility of each assessee as per the statutory requirements.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The matter was restored to the AO to verify the eligibility of each assessee as per the statutory requirements.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to prosecute its appeal on merits before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unsustainable as the AO had made a conscious decision after considering the assessee's explanation. The AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that where an assessee is completely debt-free and does not incur any interest cost on borrowed funds, no separate transfer pricing adjustment towards notional interest on outstanding trade receivables is warranted, following the decision in Kore AI Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, which in turn relied on decisions of the Chennai and Delhi Benches, ultimately approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal noted that the claim of being debt-free requires factual verification. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification. If found to be debt-free, the AO is directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,46,83,001/-. Other grounds were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that where an assessee is completely debt-free and does not incur any interest cost on borrowed funds, no separate transfer pricing adjustment towards notional interest on outstanding trade receivables is warranted, following the decision in Kore AI Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, which in turn relied on decisions of the Chennai and Delhi Benches, ultimately approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal noted that the claim of being debt-free requires factual verification. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification. If found to be debt-free, the AO is directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,46,83,001/-. Other grounds were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay. The assessee's consistent non-compliance at assessment, first appellate, and tribunal stages demonstrated negligence and inaction, not circumstances beyond their control.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% of unaccounted business receipts, considering prior disclosures to avoid double taxation. It upheld the disallowance of loss set-off against undisclosed income under Section 79A.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% of unaccounted business receipts, considering prior disclosures to avoid double taxation. It upheld the disallowance of loss set-off against undisclosed income under Section 79A.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% of unaccounted business receipts, considering prior disclosures to avoid double taxation. It upheld the disallowance of loss set-off against undisclosed income under Section 79A.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate profit at 10% of unaccounted business receipts, considering prior disclosures to avoid double taxation. It upheld the disallowance of loss set-off against undisclosed income under Section 79A.
The Tribunal held that an appellate authority can entertain a claim for deduction under Section 54F even if not made in the return of income or before the Assessing Officer, provided there is a reasonable explanation. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of eligibility.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were reasonably explained by the assessee's disclosed business receipts and past savings. The utilization of the deposits for purchasing gold further supported the explanation. Therefore, the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 179 days subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for not filing the return on time was bona fide due to COVID-related duties. Since the returned income was accepted without additions and substantial TDS was deducted, the penalty was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee itself admitted additional income, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld. However, for assessment year 2021-22, where no additional income was admitted by the assessee, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted as there was no basis for the AO's estimation.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 149(1)(b) for AY 2015-16. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that once Form-10IC is filed to exercise the option under Section 115BAA, it applies to subsequent assessment years. Therefore, the denial of the benefit for the current year based on the previous year's belated filing was incorrect.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding it relevant for adjudicating the issue of unsecured loans. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee itself admitted additional income, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld. However, for assessment year 2021-22, where no additional income was admitted by the assessee, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted as there was no basis for the AO's estimation.
The Tribunal held that clinical trial expenditure incurred outside the approved R&D facility is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). For other expenses, the matter was remanded for verification under Section 37(1).
The Tribunal acknowledged that an identical question of law was pending before the High Court in the assessee's own case for earlier years. Following the procedure under Section 158A of the Act, the Tribunal admitted the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee itself admitted additional income, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld. However, for assessment year 2021-22, where no additional income was admitted by the assessee, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted as there was no basis for the AO's estimation.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on April 9, 2022, was beyond the six-year period from the end of the assessment year, making it invalid and barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 15% profit on unaccounted cash receipts and income. Additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans were sustained, but the benefit of telescoping was allowed against income from estimated profits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 15% profit on unaccounted cash receipts and income. Additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans were sustained, but the benefit of telescoping was allowed against income from estimated profits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 15% profit on unaccounted cash receipts and income. Additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans were sustained, but the benefit of telescoping was allowed against income from estimated profits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 15% profit on unaccounted cash receipts and income. Additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans were sustained, but the benefit of telescoping was allowed against income from estimated profits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 15% profit on unaccounted cash receipts and income. Additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans were sustained, but the benefit of telescoping was allowed against income from estimated profits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 15% profit on unaccounted cash receipts and income. Additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans were sustained, but the benefit of telescoping was allowed against income from estimated profits.
The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 15% profit on unaccounted cash receipts and income. Additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans were sustained, but the benefit of telescoping was allowed against income from estimated profits.
The Tribunal held that since the incriminating material was delivered to the assessee's AO in a period relevant to AY 2022-23, the assessment year in question (AY 2021-22) fell within the six preceding years. Therefore, the assessment should have been framed under Section 153C, not Section 143(3).
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee itself admitted additional income, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld. However, for assessment year 2021-22, where no additional income was admitted by the assessee, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted as there was no basis for the AO's estimation.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years where the assessee itself admitted additional income, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld. However, for assessment year 2021-22, where no additional income was admitted by the assessee, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were deleted as there was no basis for the AO's estimation.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a 'change of opinion' by the successor AO on the same material available during the original assessment, without any fresh tangible evidence. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.