Loading ITAT cases…
164 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and held that the discrepancy in salary income was a bona fide typographical mistake. The Tribunal directed the AO to rectify the record and treat the salary income as Rs. 3,10,691.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the medical records and affidavit. On merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh decision, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Costs were imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.
During the hearing, the assessee's Authorized Representative requested to withdraw the appeal. The Department's Representative had no objection to this request.
The Tribunal consolidated the appeals for common disposal. Regarding additions based on diaries (Exhibits 11 & 24), the Tribunal noted the assessee's denial of ownership and connection. The CIT(A) had reduced the addition. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had already considered the assessee's contentions regarding the diaries and had made a reduction. The Tribunal did not elaborate further on this specific issue, implying it accepted the CIT(A)'s findings on the reduction. Regarding additions based on WhatsApp messages, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's arguments that these messages are not books of account and that interpretations of amounts might be flawed. The CIT(A) had reduced the additions based on these messages. The Tribunal, in its reasoning, stated that the CIT(A) had already granted relief by reducing the additions. The Tribunal did not provide a specific finding on the validity of using WhatsApp messages for additions but implicitly accepted the CIT(A)'s reduction. For the interest income issue (A.Y. 2017-18), the Tribunal noted the CIT(A) granted relief. For the peak balance issue (A.Y. 2018-19), the Tribunal noted the CIT(A) granted relief. The Tribunal's operative direction was to uphold the CIT(A)'s order, implying the reductions made by the CIT(A) were accepted. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were illegal and void ab initio. The primary reason for this decision was that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to conduct proper and independent inquiry before issuing the notice under section 148. The AO had relied solely on 'borrowed satisfaction' derived from information provided by the Investigation Wing. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's audited balance sheet, which was available to the AO prior to the issuance of the notice, clearly showed no increase in share capital during the relevant period. Furthermore, the ledger accounts and share purchase/sale accounts filed by the assessee demonstrated that the Rs. 20,00,000/- in question represented sale consideration for equity shares held as stock-in-trade, which were duly accounted for. The Tribunal respectfully followed the ratio laid down in judgments such as Kantibhai Dharmshibhai Narola (Guj. HC) and Bhaijee Commodities (P.) Ltd. (Del. - Trib.), which emphasize the necessity of independent investigation by the AO before forming reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. Consequently, the notice issued under section 148 was quashed, and the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- was deleted. The second ground of appeal, concerning the merits of the addition, was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that additions based on WhatsApp messages and diaries without corresponding evidence of transactions are not sustainable. It also ruled that Section 40A(2) is not applicable for making notional interest additions when interest is charged from parties.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2010-11 were illegal and bad in law and deserved to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the admitted fact that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee after she filed her return in response to the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal noted that while the AO referred to a date for issuing notice under Section 143(2) in the order sheet, there was no reference to any such notice being issued or served in the order sheet entries from 13/08/2015 to 18/03/2016. The assessee also furnished an affidavit confirming non-receipt of such notice, and the DR failed to rebut these facts. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ACIT vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma, which held that notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory and its absence renders reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings for AY 2010-11 under Section 147 were quashed, and the impugned additions were deleted. Ground No. 2 was allowed. The remaining grounds were dismissed as infructuous.
The tribunal held that the excess cash, surrendered during the survey and declared in the return, was in the nature of business income and not unexplained money under Section 69A. Consequently, the provisions of Section 115BBE were not attracted, and the Assessing Officer was directed to assess the income under the head "Income from Business and Profession" under normal provisions.
The Tribunal remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) with directions. The AO is to instruct JDA to revise their TDS returns to reflect the credit in AY 2015-16. If JDA fails to respond within two months, the AO shall grant the TDS credit for AY 2015-16 based on its appearance in Form 26AS for AY 2016-17 and communicate with the CPC TDS system.
The Tribunal found that the AO's 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment was based on incorrect facts, as the assessee had already filed an ITR. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 and all subsequent reassessment proceedings were held to be invalid and void ab initio and were quashed. The impugned additions were deleted, and other grounds of appeal became academic.
The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the assessee had not declared the sale of property in the original return. Regarding the additions, the tribunal restricted the disallowance of cost of construction for both long-term and short-term capital gains, directing the AO to recalculate the figures.
The Tribunal held that additions based on WhatsApp messages and diaries without corresponding evidence of transactions are not sustainable. It also ruled that Section 40A(2) is not applicable for making notional interest additions when interest is charged from parties.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. Regarding the first ground concerning the Section 154 order being bad in law and barred by limitation, the Tribunal noted that while the AO claimed notice was served, there was no evidence to prove it, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic and movement restrictions at the time. The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved a fair opportunity and granted one more opportunity, thus allowing the appeal on this procedural ground. On the second ground, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's alternative contention that the Section 154 order was incorrect. The addition of Rs. 4,04,706/- was made under Section 69C. The AO invoked Section 115BBE in the rectification order to tax this addition at 60% plus surcharge. However, the Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 115BBE, which mandated a 60% tax rate for income referred to in Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, and 69D, was effective from 01/04/2017. Since the transaction giving rise to the addition occurred in FY 2016-17 (AY 2017-18), the old provisions of Section 115BBE were in force. The AO incorrectly applied the amended provisions, making the rectification order incorrect and not in accordance with law. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed ground No. 2. The third ground regarding interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not expressly decided as the appeal was allowed on other grounds.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee is an agriculturist and presented additional documents (though not filed before lower authorities). To ensure a fair opportunity and proper examination of facts, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the Jurisdictional AO for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to present all relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the substantive addition for unexplained investment should have been made only in AY 2016-17, as the investment was made in that financial year. Consequently, the substantive addition for AY 2018-19 was set aside, and the protective addition for AY 2016-17 was deemed allowed.
The Tribunal held that the substantive addition for unexplained investment should have been made in AY 2016-17, as the investment was made in that financial year. Consequently, the substantive addition for AY 2018-19 was set aside, and the appeal related to AY 2016-17 was considered allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied arbitrarily and unstainably. The penalty should have been calculated on the final assessed income after considering reliefs granted by the CIT(A), not the gross sale consideration. The authorities below were found to be perverse in their orders.
The Tribunal held that brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation are not required to be set off against business profits before allowing deduction under Section 10AA. This is based on judicial precedents which clarify that Section 10AA deduction is allowed at the stage of computing gross total income, and set-off provisions do not apply.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- for unrecorded purchases made by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified as it was based on an estimated figure without any supporting evidence or documents found during the survey. Therefore, this addition was deleted. Regarding the gross profit margin on unrecorded sales, the Tribunal considered the assessee's contention and the net profit rate regularly offered for tax. It deemed it appropriate to estimate the net profit at 10% on the alleged unrecorded sales of Rs. 25,37,807/-. Consequently, the addition was sustained at Rs. 2,53,781/- (10% of Rs. 25,37,807/-), a reduction from the Rs. 11,34,452/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). This provided further relief of Rs. 8,80,671/- to the assessee. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 were partly allowed. Ground No. 4, being general, required no adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were liable to be quashed as the AO did not record proper satisfaction and did not provide the satisfaction note and underlying documents to the assessee. Regarding the addition of Rs. 11,69,050 (Ground No. 3), the Tribunal found that the DRP's directions were bad in law as the alleged incriminating material was not provided, and no opportunity for cross-examination was given, violating principles of natural justice. The addition was deleted. For the enhancement of Rs. 1,20,10,610 (Ground No. 4), the Tribunal ruled that the DRP's enhancement powers under Section 144C(8) must be restricted to incriminating documents found during the search, as per the Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The source of funds, being sale proceeds from property and capital gains account, was fully explained and supported by documents. Therefore, the enhancement was held to be bad in law and deleted. Ground No. 2 was rendered academic as Grounds 1, 2, and 3 were allowed. The issues in ITA No. 234/JPR/2025 were similar, and the decision in ITA No. 232/JPR/2025 was applied mutatis mutandis. The operative direction was to delete the additions.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271F and 271(1)(c) should be decided afresh along with the quantum proceedings, which were set aside. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted as the notices were not properly served due to an incorrect address.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271F and 271(1)(c) should be decided afresh along with the quantum proceedings, which were set aside. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted as the notices were not properly served due to an incorrect address.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the Learned DR for the department had no objection. The Tribunal also allowed the prayer for restoration of the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) to the Learned CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, as it was not opposed by the Revenue. The reasoning was that while three notices were issued by the CIT(E) and not complied with, the issues involved in the Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) application were significant. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the applicant. However, due to the non-compliance with the notices, the assessee-appellant was burdened with costs of Rs. 1,000/-, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and the receipt submitted to the Learned CIT(E). No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that it was a fit case to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to pay costs.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not recorded proper satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C and had not provided the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person or the underlying documents. The Tribunal found that the DRP had erred in directing additions under Section 69. Specifically, regarding the addition of Rs. 1,31,79,660, the Tribunal observed that the AO had not verified the source of payments made through banking channels. The Tribunal also found that the DRP's reliance on certain documents to allege 'on-money' payment for the flat purchase was not substantiated. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had not properly examined the payments made through banking channels before arriving at the cash transaction value. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO and directed by the DRP. The issue of limitation was also raised by the assessee as an additional ground.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposited was out of proceeds from sales recorded in the books of accounts before the demonetization announcement. Since the sales were not disputed by the AO, the proceeds could not be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271F and 271(1)(c) should be decided afresh along with the quantum proceedings, which were set aside. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted as the notices were not properly served due to an incorrect address.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the application for additional evidence before passing the final order, violating natural justice. However, it confirmed an addition of Rs. 3,64,026/- for loans where confirmation and repayment details were not sufficiently established.
The Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the Assessing Officer to consider it.
The Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the Assessing Officer to consider it.
The Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the Assessing Officer to consider it.
The Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the Assessing Officer to consider it.
The Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the Assessing Officer to consider it.
The Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the Assessing Officer to consider it.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her primary onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence for the loans. The Tribunal also found that the consequential disallowance of interest was not sustainable.
The Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the Assessing Officer to consider it.
The Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the Assessing Officer to consider it.
The Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the Assessing Officer to consider it.
The Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the Assessing Officer to consider it.
The Tribunal decided to restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence and for the Assessing Officer to consider it.
The Tribunal condoned the 10-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the Ld. AR's explanation of inadvertent misplacement of documents. Recognizing that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to submit all required documents.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order u/s 263 was not justified as the AO had considered the explanations and the transactions offered by the assessee. It was deemed a change of opinion by the PCIT, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee, Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Kota, is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, being an instrumentality of the State. The Tribunal found that the Assessee exhibits deep and pervasive State control, enjoys a State-conferred or State-protected monopoly status, and its functions are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions. The Tribunal noted that if a government department is transferred to such an entity, it strongly supports the inference of it being an instrumentality or agency of the Government. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Assessee's income is not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete all additions made, irrespective of the head of income. The Assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, Urban Improvement Trust, Kota, is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, being an instrumentality of the State. This conclusion was based on factors such as deep and pervasive State control, monopoly status, and the performance of functions of public importance closely related to governmental functions. Consequently, the Tribunal found the assessee's income to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were allowed. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete all additions made, irrespective of the head of income. The Tribunal found Sections 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act to be irrelevant in light of the constitutional provisions. The ratio decidendi is that an entity fulfilling the criteria of an instrumentality of the State under Article 289(1) of the Constitution is exempt from income tax.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C were issued after the CIT(A)'s order and before filing of appeals, implying acceptance of the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal further noted that the issue of maintainability of notices under Section 148 was decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was wrongly dismissed by the CIT(A) solely on grounds of delay without considering the merits. It found that the bank account belonged to the employer, and the assessee's PAN was incorrectly linked to it. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, Urban Improvement Trust, Kota, is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, being an instrumentality of the State. This conclusion was based on the existence of deep and pervasive State control, the assessee's monopoly status conferred or protected by the State, the public importance of its functions closely related to governmental functions, and the potential transfer of government departments to such entities. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the assessee's income is not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all. The Tribunal also noted that Sections 10(46) and 10(46A) of the Act were irrelevant in light of the constitutional provisions. The revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were allowed. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete all additions made, irrespective of the head of income.
The ITAT held that the Urban Improvement Trust is an instrumentality of the State and falls under the purview of Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, its income is not chargeable under the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO to decide afresh, providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for being lethargic.