Loading ITAT cases…
166 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the additional income disclosed in the 153A return was based on a retracted statement without corroborative evidence. The assessment should not be based solely on such a statement, especially when the original return and subsequent filings indicated otherwise.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim TDS as available in view of Rule 37BA, considering the nature of business and relevant Board Circulars. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal as they opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Verifying the application, the Tribunal found it to be in order and allowed the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to discharge his primary onus regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors for loans from Atharva Associates and Prashant Pattiwal, there were circumstances to reconsider the issue concerning Geetaben Bharat Oswal. The order of the lower authorities was confirmed for two creditors, and the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes concerning Geetaben Bharat Oswal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for cash payments for land purchase was not substantiated with evidence before the AO. The documents provided later to the CIT(A) were considered an afterthought, and the sale agreement for the land was never materialized.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and noted that the appeals were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance by the assessee's representative. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, is not an essential requirement for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, nor for approval under Section 80G. The appellant had already been granted registration under Section 12AB.
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's request for another opportunity to comply with directions. Considering this, the matter was remanded to the Learned CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the applicant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order of remand was not helpful. The Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for effective adjudication, considering the peculiar facts and in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 68 days in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to decide the application afresh after the assessee provides the required documents, including proof of Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and details of activities.
The Tribunal disposed of both appeals by concurring with the view of the CIT(A), with a modification. The Tribunal directed that the addition made in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity be deleted. Appropriate action as per law is to be taken in the case of the AOP (Shri Kedar Prasad Vijay, Shri Tulsi Ram Mittal, and Shri Dilip Kumar). While assessing the income of the AOP, the AO is directed to take into consideration the various mistakes in the amounts as highlighted by the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal did not delve into the detailed factual disputes regarding the quantum of receipts and expenses or the mis-attribution of entries to the assessment year, as the primary direction was to shift the assessment to the AOP. The principle of mutuality was implicitly accepted by directing assessment in the hands of the AOP, implying the funds were not income in the individual's hands but belonged to the collective.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to properly appreciate the assessee's explanations and evidence, relying solely on information from the DIT(I&CI). Both the AO and CIT(A) failed to counter the evidence and submissions, and did not establish that the assessee actually received any consideration or fulfilled other transfer conditions. The Tribunal found the orders of the authorities below silent on the relevant issues raised by the assessee and passed without application of mind. It reiterated that only real income can be taxed, not notional or unreal income. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Hira Lal Ram Dayal and CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 3,62,04,377.00 was deleted. However, a condition was imposed on the assessee to file an undertaking with the AO to update them on the outcome of the ongoing litigation and to offer tax on the income if the transaction is confirmed in favour of the buyer.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing that the addition made in the assessee's individual capacity be deleted, subject to assessment in the hands of the AOP. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s view, with a modification. The addition made in the hands of the assessee (Shri Kedar Prasad Vijay) was directed to be deleted. Appropriate action as per law was to be taken in the case of the AOP (Shri Kedar Prasad Vijay, Shri Tulsi Ram Mittal, and Shri Dilip Kumar). While assessing the income of the AOP, the AO was also directed to take into consideration the various mistakes in the amounts highlighted by the assessee's AR. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the factual mistakes in the AO's computation or the issue of mutuality, as the primary direction was to shift the assessment to the AOP. The appeals were disposed of with these directions. The issue of whether the entries related to AY 2016-17 or AY 2015-16 was implicitly addressed by directing the AO to consider the highlighted mistakes during the AOP's assessment.
The Tribunal decided both issues in favor of the assessee. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the AO erred in making an addition under section 40A(3) without establishing the nature of the expenditure for which cash payments were made. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not issue letters to the entities listed in the impounded records to confirm the expenditure. Furthermore, the tax auditor had certified that there was no violation of section 40A(3). Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete this addition. Concerning the second issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee provided a certificate indicating that Rs. 28,32,500/- out of the total Rs. 67,11,000/- deposited was in specified bank notes. The assessee's cash book as of 09.11.2016 showed a balance of Rs. 69,48,887/-. The Tribunal held that the explanation for the cash deposit was duly recorded in the books of accounts and that the income from business activities had already been taxed. The lower authorities disbelieved the assessee's explanation without establishing any credible infirmity, relying merely on doubts and conjectures. The Tribunal concluded that no addition could be sustained, especially given the assessee's substantial turnover. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and noted that the appeals were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance by the assessee's representative. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to comply with CIT(A)'s notices, the issues could be adjudicated based on existing records. The disallowance for commission payments to non-residents was deleted, but the disallowance for CSR expenses was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was satisfied with the explanation of the source of investment, confirmed by bank certificates for FDRs which were NRE FDs. Since the department failed to establish that the assessee invested the sum of Rs. 43,61,652/- without explaining its source, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals. It was held that registration under the RPT Act is not an essential requirement for registration under Section 12AB. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the applicant an opportunity to rectify deficiencies and present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 11 days in filing the appeals. It was held that registration under the RPT Act is not an essential requirement for registration under Section 12AB. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the applicant an opportunity to rectify deficiencies and present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the applicant's claim of incorporation date and the issues involved in seeking registration. While acknowledging deficiencies in the application and affidavit, the Tribunal noted that registration under the RPT Act is not an essential requirement for 12AB registration.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded both applications back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, instructing to provide another reasonable opportunity to the applicant. The tribunal also imposed costs of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellant-society for non-compliance with previous notices.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded both applications back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, instructing to provide another reasonable opportunity to the applicant. The tribunal also imposed costs of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellant-society for non-compliance with previous notices.
The Tribunal held that the surrendered income was part of the assessee's business activities and not unexplained investment. Consequently, the provisions of Section 115BBE were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-submission of Form 16, as other documents were provided. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the limit for leave encashment exemption was revised to Rs. 25,00,000/-. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the full claimed amount.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition as the AO relied solely on Customs information, which was overturned by CESTAT. Furthermore, subsequent High Court orders in similar cases concerning the assessee's wife also supported the deletion of such additions. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not sufficiently discuss the grounds for condoning the delay before rejecting it. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the condonation of delay and then on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. It directed the CIT(E) to decide the application for 12AB registration afresh once the assessee produces proof of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and to reconsider the genuineness of activities. The outcome of the 80G appeal was deemed consequential to the 12AB decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases. The Tribunal noted that the revenue had not brought any evidence to prove the transactions were bogus.
The Tribunal held that since the sale deeds were in the name of Shri Purshottam Bairwa, and he had explained the source of investment, and further, the same investment was subsequently assessed in the hands of Shri Purshottam Bairwa and M/s. Gupteshwar Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to a Section 263 order, the addition in the hands of the assessee was unjustified.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the assessment order passed under Section 153A was invalid as no search was actually conducted on the assessee and no incriminating material was found. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Abhisar Buildwell, the Tribunal held that additions in an unabated assessment cannot be made without incriminating material. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal, including the additional ground challenging the invalidation of the assessment order, was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes. Regarding the rejection of the Section 12AB registration, the Tribunal noted that the assessee stated it was in the process of applying for registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and was likely to obtain it. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) with a direction to decide the application afresh once the assessee produces the registration certificate. The assessee was also directed to submit documents relating to the genuineness of its activities. Since the Section 80G appeal was consequential to the Section 12AB registration, it was also restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal clarified that this decision did not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated independently by the CIT(E).
The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-compliance and lack of documentary evidence. However, acknowledging the past defaults and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the sole reason for the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB by the CIT(E) was the non-registration of the assessee trust under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act (RPT Act). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had initiated the process and applied for registration under the RPT Act, rendering the defect pointed out by the CIT(E) as curable. Considering the principle of substantial justice, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the issue of registration under Section 12AB ought to be reconsidered afresh in light of the registration under the RPT Act, once obtained. Accordingly, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, with the assessee to be afforded an opportunity to produce relevant documents, including the RPT Act registration certificate. The Tribunal clarified that this decision was not an expression on the merits of the case, and the CIT(E) would decide the issue independently. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that in cases where search or requisition is made, and incriminating material belongs to or relates to a person other than the one searched, the Assessing Officer (AO) must proceed under Section 153C of the Act. Since the notices under Section 148 were issued without following the procedure under Section 153C, they were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the applicant's senior citizen status and a miscommunication issue. However, the grounds of appeal challenging the addition and ex-parte order were largely dismissed or found not maintainable.
The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without considering the assessee's additional evidence. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee another opportunity to submit arguments and evidence, provided they cooperate and avoid frivolous adjournments. The Tribunal clarified that this restoration does not imply any reflection on the merits of the case, which the AO shall adjudicate independently.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was interested in withdrawing the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Bench allowed the withdrawal of the appeal and dismissed it as having been withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that in cases where search or requisition is made, and incriminating material belongs to or relates to a person other than the one searched, the Assessing Officer (AO) must proceed under Section 153C of the Act. Since the notices under Section 148 were issued without following the procedure under Section 153C, they were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and had submitted a paper book before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO to decide afresh, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's remote location, confusion regarding legal remedies, and the curable nature of the defects. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while withdrawals were reflected, the immediate credit preceding the withdrawal was not adequately explained. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the taxability of this initial credit.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte because the assessee failed to appear or submit evidence. However, considering the assessee's claim that notices were sent to an old email and the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The primary reasoning for allowing the appeal was that the Assessing Officer (AO) had erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal observed that the AO had reopened the assessment without recording any subjective belief as to the escapement of income, merely acting upon suspicion formed on the basis of information received from other officials. This was considered a violation of the prerequisite condition for reopening an assessment, where suspicion cannot substitute a firm belief. Furthermore, the reassessment was initiated after four years from the relevant assessment year, when the assessment had already been completed under Section 143(3) after complete verification. The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions on presumptions and surmises, treating share application money as unsecured loans, and failed to provide the assessee with relevant material or an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the AO's approach was casual and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment order was held to be legally null and void, and the consequent additions were directed to be deleted. The Tribunal deemed it fit not to examine other grounds as the matter was declared legally null and void. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted documents pertaining to various companies that had subscribed to its shares.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's remote location, confusion regarding legal remedies, and the curable nature of the defects. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the primary contention of the assessee pertained to the validity of reassessment proceedings and the issuance of notice under Section 148, alleging procedural lapses such as improper service, lack of proper approval under Section 151, absence of DIN, and denial of reasonable opportunity. The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) held the notice under Section 148 as validly issued and served, there was no clear finding on independent verification of the assessee's allegations regarding non-service and procedural irregularities. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) did not verify whether the reasons for reopening were provided to the assessee as mandated by GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO. Regarding the addition under Section 69A, the Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed ex parte and the CIT(A) did not verify if a proper opportunity of hearing was extended. Similarly, for interest income and Chapter VI-A deductions, it was evident that no opportunity was provided to the assessee. In the interest of substantial justice and considering the assessee's contentions, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment, with directions to provide adequate opportunity, ensure proper service of notices, and communicate reasons for reopening. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be said to have failed to explain the source of cash deposits in the financial years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The department did not produce any incriminating material to suggest concealed facts regarding the source of cash deposits. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be said to have failed to explain the source of cash deposits in the financial years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The department did not produce any incriminating material to suggest concealed facts regarding the source of cash deposits. Therefore, the appeals were allowed.