Loading ITAT cases…
105 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had dropped the penalty proceedings and the penalty order itself, based on a prior appellate order that deleted a significant addition related to turnover. Consequently, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The ITAT allowed the appeal for AY 2017-18, directing deletion of the addition as no incriminating material was found during the search for unabated assessments. For AY 2018-19, the matter was remanded to the AO to consider additional evidence.
The ITAT allowed the appeal for AY 2017-18, directing deletion of the addition as no incriminating material was found during the search for unabated assessments. For AY 2018-19, the matter was remanded to the AO to consider additional evidence.
The Tribunal condoned a 14-day delay in filing one of the appeals, attributing it to technical glitches. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with a direction to consider the application upon submission of the RPT Act registration and documents proving genuineness of activities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a charitable committee, did not respond to notices for both assessment years. While the authorities provided opportunities, the assessee remained non-responsive. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that while Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) requires compliance with other laws material to the trust's objects, the Ld. CIT(E) failed to establish how compliance with the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, was material for the assessee trust's objects. The Tribunal distinguished the cited judgments, noting they pertained to educational institutions with specific regulatory frameworks. The Tribunal also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in New Noble Educational Society vs. CCIT, which emphasized compliance with state laws where registration is obligatory. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not sufficiently demonstrated the materiality of the RPT Act compliance for the assessee's specific objects. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found no force in the objections raised by the Ld. CIT(E). The Tribunal observed that the objects of the trust exhibited a dual tenor of religious and charitable purposes and activities, and that the activities were not exclusively meant for a particular religious community, thus not falling under the exclusionary provisions of Section 13(1)(b). The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to allow the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The cancellation of provisional registration and approval was consequently set aside. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal considered the request and allowed the application, treating the appeals as dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a charitable committee, did not respond to notices for both assessment years. While the authorities provided opportunities, the assessee remained non-responsive. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the assessee's first ground regarding the lack of opportunity under the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a). The Tribunal reasoned that the proviso applies only when adjustments are made to the total income or loss, and in this case, the returned income was accepted, meaning no adjustment was made to the income itself. Therefore, no prior opportunity was required. Regarding the second ground, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim that the interest income earned on Local Area Development charges was revenue-neutral and that the TDS credit should be allowed. The Tribunal further elaborated that the assessee, as a Solar Park Developer, collects LAD charges for local community development, and the unutilized amount and its interest are also for local development, making it revenue-neutral. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify this contention and, if verified, to grant the refund as claimed, allowing the credit of TDS. Ground No. 2 was allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 1 was not adjudicated on merits as the appeal was considered on the substantive issue.
The Tribunal held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act is not a mandatory condition for obtaining registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. It also found that the CIT(E) did not provide sufficient grounds or evidence to doubt the genuineness of the assessee's activities. For the 80G approval, the Tribunal noted that the objection regarding the necessity of 12AB registration was already decided in favor of the assessee, and the second objection concerning religious trusts was addressed by relying on Apex Court judgments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it a fit case for condonation due to the circumstances of communication with the former counsel. The matter was then remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s reasons for rejecting the registration were baseless and could not be used to refuse registration under Section 12AA. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities were not under challenge and directed the CIT(E) to grant registration.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal considered the request and allowed the application, treating the appeals as dismissed.
The tribunal noted that the learned AR of the assessee prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and the learned DR had no objection. Therefore, the Bench allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the reasons for rejection by the CIT(E) were curable in nature and that the assessee was at the final stage of RPT Act registration. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the reasons for rejection by the CIT(E) were curable in nature and that the assessee was at the final stage of RPT Act registration. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to properly examine the gift transactions despite all relevant material being on record. The Tribunal found the donor to be a person of means and accepted the assessee's contentions regarding the gifts.
The Tribunal held that grounds 1 and 2, relating to the assessment order being time-barred and quashed due to procedural non-compliance, were untenable and frivolous. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with any notices issued by the AO during the remand proceedings, necessitating the assessment under Section 144. Regarding grounds 3, 4, and 5, which pertained to the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- (for AY 2014-15) and Rs. 10,00,000/- (for AY 2016-17) as unexplained investment, the Tribunal observed that during the original assessment, the assessee had provided a gift deed from his Bhabhi, Smt. Inderjeet Kaur Sahni, and disclosed the gift and investment in his financial statements. The Tribunal also noted that the donor's financial position was substantial, and her income was significant. Crucially, the Tribunal found that all relevant material to decide the issue of the gift's source was on record, but the AO had not acted upon it in either the original or the second round of proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that no further opportunity should be given to the revenue, and the assessee's contentions were accepted. The addition of Rs. 3 Lacs for AY 2014-15 was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal applied the same reasoning mutatis mutandis to AY 2016-17 for the gift of Rs. 9,50,000/- (though the addition was Rs. 10,00,000/-), allowing the appeal. The addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- for AY 2014-15 was deleted. The addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- for AY 2016-17 was also deleted based on the same reasoning.
The Tribunal allowed the prayer of the assessee's AR to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if no settlement is reached under the Scheme-2024. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal consolidated and decided both cross-appeals. Regarding the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted additions related to stock valuation. The judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the deletion of the Rs.1,98,88,536/- and Rs.1,29,81,073/- additions, but implies it was justified. For the Assessee's appeal, the Tribunal addressed two grounds. Firstly, concerning the addition of Rs.3,75,913/- on account of stock difference, the Tribunal, by respectfully following a binding precedent (though not specified in the excerpt), found no reason to sustain the addition and directed its deletion, allowing Ground No. 2 of the Assessee's appeal. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of Rs.3,00,000/- from travelling, repairs, and other expenses, the Tribunal upheld the deletion made by the CIT(A) and ITAT, finding that receipts were substantially higher than expenditure and the disallowance could not be faulted. The Tribunal also discussed the deletion of disallowance of salary/remuneration to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Shri Viswas Jain, to the extent of Rs.24 lac, stating that reasonableness should be judged from a businessman's angle and that the increase was approved by shareholders. The Tribunal found no infirmity or perversity in the CIT(A)'s and ITAT's orders on these matters, deeming them findings of fact with no substantial question of law arising.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable as the amount was already recorded in the books of accounts as sundry debtors. Furthermore, the amount was not received during the year under consideration, making the reliance on the cited case law inappropriate.
The Tribunal allowed the prayer of the assessee's AR to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if no settlement is reached under the Scheme-2024. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition related to stock valuation. It also found merit in the assessee's grounds regarding the disallowance of certain expenses, remanding the issue for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding undisclosed advances and interest, as well as the disallowances for expenses with personal elements. The penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the notice under section 148 and subsequent assessment proceedings were issued without proper territorial jurisdiction, as per section 124 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore quashed the proceedings.
The tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to make the investments, citing a Gujarat High Court judgment. Therefore, no disallowance under Section 14A was justified. The tribunal also noted that the assessee had already disallowed certain expenses related to exempt income.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding undisclosed advances and interest, as well as the disallowances for expenses with personal elements. The penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The revisionary order was set aside as the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding undisclosed advances and interest, as well as the disallowances for expenses with personal elements. The penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, as an employer, was required to deposit employees' contribution towards EPF before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Since the assessee deposited these amounts after the due dates, the disallowance was justified.
The Tribunal held that once the AO found the reason for reopening (cash deposits) to be explained, his jurisdiction to make other additions ceased. Therefore, subsequent additions made by the AO were illegal.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal was based on the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme for both the quantum assessment and the penalty order.
The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding undisclosed advances and interest, as well as the disallowances for expenses with personal elements. The penalty levied under Section 271AAB was also confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action under Section 154 was unjustified as the issue had already been decided by the ITAT in favor of the assessee. The AO had also failed to point out any mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It then restored the matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide the required details and information.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to submit required details.
The Tribunal held that the spot verification was illegal due to lack of proper authorization, rendering the subsequent assessment order void. Additionally, the consolidation of two assessment years in a single order was also found to be in violation of statutory provisions.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of cash was not justified as the assessee had withdrawn the amount earlier and there was no evidence of its utilization elsewhere. Regarding jewellery, the Tribunal noted that it was found in the possession of family members and considered it as belonging to the family as a whole, thus deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the Section 80G application solely on the basis of non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act without considering the materiality of the non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had already applied for registration under the said Act.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of cash deposits being out of earlier withdrawals and savings, supported by balance sheets, was correct. The addition sustained by the CIT(Appeals) was deleted.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be vague and erroneous, noting the assessee's non-cooperation and the lack of verification of transactions. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the transactions in question were recorded in the books of accounts of the husband and the assessee's bank statement, and thus did not constitute unexplained cash credits attracting Section 68. The impugned assessment and the order of the CIT(Appeal) were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) and could not present their defense. While acknowledging the assessee's lethargy, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was without merit and accordingly dismissed it. The CIT(A) had considered the facts and submissions, noting that the assessee had provided loan confirmations, bank statements of lenders, and financial statements of the creditor companies, which were audited by independent chartered accountants. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by proving the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors. The Tribunal noted that the loans and repayments were made through account payee cheques. It was also observed that the AO had not made any addition on account of interest claimed/paid by the assessee on these loans, which was allowed as business expenditure. The Tribunal relied on the principle that the assessee is not expected to prove the source of the source, citing Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT. Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Orissa Corporation, stating that when the assessee furnishes details of creditors, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the lack of creditworthiness, and non-compliance with summons by creditors is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that for creditors who appeared before the AO, their statements admitted to advancing loans via account payee cheques, and if the AO was not satisfied with the cash deposits in their bank accounts, the proper course would have been to assess those creditors under Section 69. The Tribunal also highlighted the wording of Section 68, noting the use of 'may' rather than 'shall', implying that an unsatisfactory explanation does not automatically result in the sum being charged as income, as held in C/T v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan.
The Tribunal held that additions in completed assessments under Section 153A cannot be made without any incriminating material found during the search, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s Abhisar Buildwell (P) Limited. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that additions in completed assessments under Section 153A cannot be made without any incriminating material found during the search, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s Abhisar Buildwell (P) Limited. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not mandatory for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC). The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that procedural rules should not extinguish substantive rights.
The Tribunal held that the AO had properly examined the conditions for Section 69 and verified the assessee's explanation for the investment. It also found errors in the PCIT's calculations regarding the surrendered amount and ESI payments, concluding the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the amortization of surface rights was allowable as the assessee had acquired an enduring business right and the expenditure was not claimed by the intermediary. However, the claim for depreciation on intangible assets was dismissed as the assessee failed to demonstrate the creation of any such asset benefiting its business.