Loading ITAT cases…
62 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for AY 2015-16 was restored to the AO. Following the precedent, the Tribunal restored the present appeal to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal decided to dispose of both appeals by a common order due to similar grounds. The judgment extract provided does not contain the Tribunal's final decision or reasoning on any of the issues raised. It only details the facts and the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the specific findings, reasoning, ratio, and operative directions for each issue are not available in the provided text. The extract ends abruptly while detailing the assessee's arguments regarding the application of the Berry ratio. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision on whether the AO's proceedings were without jurisdiction, the correctness of the total income assessment, the validity of transfer pricing adjustments, the disallowance of PF payments, the applicability of Section 115QA, the computation of book profits, the tax liability calculation, the appreciation of DRP directions, and the initiation of penalty under Section 270A cannot be determined from this excerpt.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee remained ex-parte before the lower authorities and did not provide necessary evidence. However, to decide the matter on merits, the appeal was allowed and the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to client code modification and consequential commission additions. It followed the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench decision, confirmed by the Gujarat High Court, regarding the permissibility of intra-day client code modifications.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to client code modification and consequential commission additions. It followed the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench decision, confirmed by the Gujarat High Court, regarding the permissibility of intra-day client code modifications.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition made on account of surrendered income. The Tribunal followed a High Court judgment stating that a revised return, if filed within the prescribed time, supersedes the original return and the AO cannot make additions based on the original return.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee received Form No. 2 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, making the disputed tax payable NIL. The assessee expressed interest in withdrawing the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 355 days finding sufficient cause, including the death of the original assessee and the appellant's unawareness of proceedings. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is interested in withdrawing the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, which pertained to the applicability of section 271AAB instead of section 271(1)(c) for penalty imposition in cases of search initiated after July 1, 2012. The Tribunal noted that the search was conducted on 30.10.2014. Citing the amended provisions of section 271AAB and the judgment of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in PCIT Vs. Jai Maa Jagdamba Flour (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that when an assessment is completed pursuant to a search under section 153A, penalty cannot be levied under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found that the penalty should have been levied under section 271AAB as the search was initiated after July 1, 2012. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was held to be invalid. The grounds raised on the merits of the dispute became academic as the appeal was allowed on a technical ground. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It directed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 42,27,900, finding that the transactions did not belong to the assessee. An addition of Rs. 3,97,000 was also directed to be deleted, and an addition of Rs. 2,43,927 was considered not pressed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's counsel's negligence. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee presented inconsistent explanations for the cash deposits, initially relying on sale agreements and later on sale deeds and a separate cash book. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the cash book entries and concluded that the assessee failed to substantiate their claims with cogent evidence.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing deletion of additions related to surrendered income based on a High Court judgment allowing revised returns. Other grounds were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after noting sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for deciding the issue afresh on merits, providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition under Section 153A for want of incriminating material. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) acted ultra vires by directing the AO to consider re-opening under Section 147. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's observation that there must be a point of finality in legal proceedings and that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s authority ended with deciding the sustainability of the Section 153A addition. Therefore, the cross-objection of the assessee was allowed, and the direction to re-open under Section 147 was quashed. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections of the assessees were allowed. The decision in the lead case was to apply mutatis mutandis to all other connected appeals and cross-objections.
On the issue concerning the immovable property (addition under section 56(2)), the Tribunal held that the actual sale consideration was paid by the firm M/s Dreamline Colonizers and Developers, duly recorded in its books of accounts and appearing in its audited balance sheets. The Tribunal noted that the property was in the name of the firm and not the assessee, and the registration in the assessee's name was an inadvertent mistake. Therefore, the addition under section 56(2) in the hands of the assessee was incorrect and rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the CIT(A)'s findings, and thus, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. On the issue of cash deposits (addition under section 68), the Tribunal noted that the assessee had deposited Rs. 11,25,200/- cash and did not submit details of the source to the AO despite notices. The assessee also did not appear before the CIT(A). Considering that the order on this issue was ex-parte in both proceedings, and to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the file of the AO. The AO is to consider the factual aspect after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, and the assessee is directed to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments. The cross-objection of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The completion of appellate proceedings arising from assessment proceedings did not extend the limitation period for these independent penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The completion of appellate proceedings arising from assessment proceedings did not extend the limitation period for these independent penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The completion of appellate proceedings arising from assessment proceedings did not extend the limitation period for these independent penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The completion of appellate proceedings arising from assessment proceedings did not extend the limitation period for these independent penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable as the income that survived was below the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT(A) does not survive, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal as the Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding ground number 1, the Tribunal did not explicitly address the contention that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order. However, by allowing the appeal on other grounds, it implicitly found the CIT(A)'s order to be unsatisfactory. Concerning ground number 2, the Tribunal did not specifically discuss the addition of Rs. 6,57,521/- on account of excess cash. Regarding ground number 3, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition made under Section 69B for excess stock. The reasoning provided in the latter part of the judgment, though seemingly related to a different issue (land purchase under Section 69B), emphasizes that the burden is on the revenue to establish that more consideration was paid than shown. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's director admitted to excess stock being purchased from unaccounted income and surrendered it, the assessee later retracted this surrender. However, the Tribunal, in its final operative part, allowed the appeal on ground no. 3, respectfully following the binding precedent of M/s Jewels Emporium vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur (DBITA No. 43/2021), and directed the deletion of the addition made under Section 69B.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity to present evidence regarding the source of cash deposits from his business, remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal quashed the assessment order passed by the AO and the order of the CIT(A). The primary reasoning was that the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were factually incorrect, stating a sale of property when it was a purchase. The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded must be clear, unambiguous, and based on tangible material, and that the AO must disclose the material that led to the belief of escaped income. The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided any material or referred to any material on the basis of which the reasons were formed, and there was no tangible material in possession of the AO leading to the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal further noted that the AO substituted the reasons recorded for initiating proceedings under Section 148 when passing the assessment order, which was beyond his jurisdiction. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not apply his mind to the fact that wrong reasons were recorded and no addition was made on those grounds, hence the CIT(A) should have quashed the assessment order. Consequently, grounds 3 and 4 became infructuous. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect filing of the audit report was a technical defect and an inadvertent human error, not a reason to deny the legitimate exemption. The CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's arguments.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition while computing book profit under Section 115JB, following various High Court and Tribunal precedents. The other grounds were not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid. The AO's reasons to believe were based on information received from the DDIT (Inv.) alleging bogus LTCG of Rs. 15,95,000/-. However, the assessee's records indicated a purchase of shares for Rs. 15,99,785/- and a sale for Rs. 8,98,545/-, resulting in a short-term capital loss. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiry and that the premise of LTCG was incorrect. Relying on various judicial precedents, including the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh and the Gujarat High Court in Vijay Harish Chandra Patel vs. ITO, the Tribunal emphasized that if the very basis for reopening no longer survives, the assumption of jurisdiction is without authority of law. The Tribunal found that the AO's belief was based on a misunderstanding of the transaction, treating a purchase amount as capital gains. Since the primary reason for reopening was found to be erroneous and lacked a nexus with the actual facts, the assessment order and the consequential addition under Section 69A were quashed. Consequently, grounds related to natural justice and the actual loss incurred became infructuous. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect filing of the audit report was a technical defect and an inadvertent human error, not a reason to deny the legitimate exemption. The CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's arguments.
The Tribunal held that filing an adjournment application with a reason, even if generic, cannot be considered as non-compliance with the notice. Since the assessee did attend to the notice by seeking time, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals involved similar issues and relied on case laws. It observed that the assessee had provided documents for transactions via banking channels and that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were proven. The Tribunal also highlighted that the amounts in question had already been taxed in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were unsustainable and needed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity and restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication on the issue of registration under Section 12AB. The assessee was directed to provide proper justification for regularization of provisional registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(E) and did not fully present its defense. However, to provide an opportunity for a fair hearing on merits, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(E) and did not fully present its defense. However, to provide an opportunity for a fair hearing on merits, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It was held that the assessment order passed by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid in the eyes of the law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 391 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be sufficient cause, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others. Grounds 1 and 2 were dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. Regarding Ground No. 3, the Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 54F, the 'net consideration' refers to the actual consideration received or accrued, and the deeming fiction under Section 50C has no application. The Tribunal relied on the ITAT Jaipur Bench decisions in Gyan Chand Batra vs ITO and Nand Lal Sharma vs ITO. The Tribunal recalculated the Long-Term Capital Gain based on the actual sale consideration of Rs. 27,93,000, indexed cost of acquisition and transfer expenses of Rs. 4,67,705, resulting in a capital gain of Rs. 23,25,295. The deduction under Section 54F was allowed at Rs. 22,89,496, leaving a taxable capital gain of Rs. 35,799. Ground No. 4 was rendered infructuous as Ground No. 3 was allowed. Ground No. 5, being consequential, was also addressed implicitly by the allowance of Ground No. 3. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals involved similar issues and relied on case laws. It observed that the assessee had provided documents for transactions via banking channels and that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were proven. The Tribunal also highlighted that the amounts in question had already been taxed in the hands of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were unsustainable and needed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that a notarized sale agreement can be considered as evidence of agreement. Considering the assessee's calculation showing a long-term capital loss and the nature of the documents presented, the Tribunal found no long-term capital gain. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity and restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication on the issue of registration under Section 12AB. The assessee was directed to provide proper justification for regularization of provisional registration.
The Tribunal noted that a subsequent assessment order accepted the assessee's returned income after reviewing Form 26AS. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's report and assessee's submissions did not fully address all entries in Form 26AS.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following a cited judgment that held that if the assessee is otherwise entitled to the deduction on merits, a belated filing of return due to reasonable cause should not disentitle them. The denial of deduction under section 80IBA was therefore set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the circumstances and the need for natural justice. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's lack of proper response and non-compliance. However, the ITAT noted that the assessee had provided written submissions and evidence, including screenshots of replies, which were allegedly not considered by the CIT(A). The ITAT also observed that the AO had made additions under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) without referring the matter to the Valuation Officer as required by the proviso.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to decide the issue afresh considering the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and related documents from the assessee, and provide an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and other required documents to resolve the issues.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee society on its deposits with a cooperative bank is inextricably linked with its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Another (2021) 7 SCC 90, and a recent Supreme Court decision in The PR. Commissioner of Income Tax 17, Mumbai VERSUS M/S ANNASAHEB PATIL MATHADI KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHPEDI LIMITED, which held that primary agricultural credit societies cannot be termed as Co-operative Banks under the Banking Regulation Act and are entitled to exemption under Section 80(P)(2). The Tribunal found that merely giving credit to its members does not make the assessee a Cooperative Bank under the Banking Regulation Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow a deduction of Rs. 31,70,144/- (though the addition was Rs. 7,84,876/-, the operative direction refers to Rs. 31,70,144/- which appears to be a clerical error in the judgment text, but the principle is clear) under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest income earned by the assessee society on its deposits. The issue of the provision for AGM was not explicitly decided.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and other required documents to resolve the issues.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons for non-receipt of notices to be bonafide. The Tribunal also considered the remand reports from the Assessing Officer which accepted certain deletions and inadvertent additions.