Loading ITAT cases…
187 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the assessee can raise the issue of the validity of the reopening of assessment in collateral proceedings. The Tribunal relied on various case laws to support this contention.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for employees' contribution to PF/ESI is not allowable if not deposited on or before the due date prescribed by the respective Acts, irrespective of deposit before the return filing date. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal found that the excavator machine, which was the primary basis for the PCIT's revisionary order, was indeed disclosed by the assessee in the statement of fixed assets. Therefore, the PCIT's view that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified as the amount was received by cheque as an advance for property sale, and the sale proceeds were disclosed in a subsequent assessment year. The AO and CIT(A) had rejected the assessee's submissions summarily.
The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be made in the assessee's hands without substantive additions in the hands of the loan creditors. Since substantive additions were made and taxes paid by some creditors, and proceedings against others were time-barred or stayed, the protective addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to the benefit of CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024, which aims to mitigate genuine hardship. The applications should not be rejected based on a strict interpretation of the circular's wording.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below did not properly examine the matter, leading to the disallowance of exempt income. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim and directed the deletion of the addition.
The tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by converting limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny without adhering to CBDT instructions, rendering the assessment order a nullity. The additions made under Section 69 were also found to be legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including the seller's VAT return, bank payment details, and tax invoices, to prove the genuineness of the purchases. Additionally, the assessment proceedings were found to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the subsequent CBDT circular rendering the matter infructuous.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal as the matter became infructuous due to the subsequent CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants. The assessee did not offer satisfactory explanation for the share capital and premium received.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance as the notice sent via email was allegedly not received. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had condoned other defaults without explanation. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing documentary evidence for the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The lower authorities' orders were found to be non-speaking and lacking proper discussion of the evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants. The assessee did not offer satisfactory explanation for the share capital and premium received.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's status as a welfare association and the disproportionate tax liability, decided to admit additional evidence. The case was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to file a fresh application for registration, considering a recent CBDT circular that permits this in cases of errors. The current rejection order will not prejudice the fresh application.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's new argument regarding transactions on behalf of clients was not specifically raised before lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the CIT(Appeals) for examination, considering a previous order on a similar issue.
The Tribunal held that the applications were not premature and set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s orders. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) to consider the applications for final registration and approval, if otherwise admissible.
The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. For the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) to allow the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's observations were general and not based on specific facts of the assessee's case, and that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries. The Tribunal also noted that the PCIT cannot direct further inquiries if the AO has already made inquiries but the findings are erroneous.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of whether a prior intimation was sent by the CPC for adjustments made under Section 143(1) to the Assessing Officer for verification. It also remanded the issue of the denial of the Section 115BAA option to the Assessing Officer to verify the filing of Form 10-IC and the applicability of Circular No. 19 of 2023.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for the registration of both existing and new patents are wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and are revenue in nature. Therefore, these expenses are allowable under Section 37 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verify the documents submitted by the assessee. The mere non-compliance with summons by shareholders cannot be the sole reason for making an addition when sufficient evidence was provided.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, directing verification of the assessee's contentions and relevant records, including BIFR/AAIFR orders. For the provision written back, the addition is to be deleted if no deduction was claimed in earlier years.
The Tribunal held that if the unsecured loans were not doubted in earlier assessment years, the corresponding interest on those loans should not be added in the current assessment year. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the sustained interest addition was erroneous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of advancing substantial justice. It held that the rejection of the application was based on a technical error and directed the CIT(Exemption) to reconsider the application on its merits, treating it under the correct clause.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for the registration of both existing and new patents are wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and are revenue in nature. Therefore, these expenses are allowable under Section 37 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for the registration of both existing and new patents are wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and are revenue in nature. Therefore, these expenses are allowable under Section 37 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the 80G application as the required documents were already on record and had been used to grant 12A registration. The order of the CIT(Exemption) was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred on registration of both existing and new patents are for the purpose of business and are revenue in nature. Therefore, these expenses are allowable under Section 37 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1.00 Cr on account of share capital/premium was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material pertaining to share capital/premium was found during the search on the assessee. The materials referred to by the AO (SVM-2 and SVM-3) were found during a survey on a third party, M/s SVM Impex and Finance Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal opined that the AO could only make additions based on incriminating material seized during the search on the assessee, not from the premises of a third party. The correct procedure would have been to frame the assessment under Section 153C, after complying with the necessary formalities regarding satisfaction of the AO of the searched/surveyed person and the assessee. The Tribunal found that the case was squarely covered by the decision of a sister concern, Bhaskar Tea & Industries Pvt. Ltd., and also by the decision in Poonam Mohta vs. ACIT, where similar issues based on documents seized during a survey on M/s SVM Impex and Finance Pvt. Ltd. were decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal further agreed with the assessee that statements recorded during search without corroborative material lack evidentiary value for making additions in an unabated assessment year, citing decisions of the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders violating principles of natural justice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct independent investigations and rejected the loss claim based on surmises and conjectures. Relying on various High Court and Tribunal decisions, it was found that the assessee's transactions were genuine and no adverse material was found against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly applied Section 69 as the assessee had received share capital, not made investments. The issue should have been considered under Section 68 if the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the transactions were not established. Since the assessee provided all necessary details, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was not sustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer had already conducted inquiries and verified the documents during the reassessment proceedings, and the PCIT had not properly confronted the assessee with the evidence.
The Tribunal found that the discrepancy was due to an accountant's error and that the AO, during remand proceedings, verified the assessee's documents and confirmed the actual payment amount. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient reasons and the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the advances received in the normal course of business and adjusted against sale consideration were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68.
The Tribunal found that the assessee maintained proper books of accounts, including quantitative records and cash book, and had sufficient cash in hand from sales. The rejection of books of accounts by the AO was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the sum of Rs. 2,70,188/- had already been offered to tax. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer resulted in double taxation.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, holding that Section 14A disallowance should not exceed the exempt income earned. The amendment by Finance Act, 2022, was held to be prospective.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments (i.e., assessments already concluded before the date of search), additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. In this case, the assessment for AY 2012-13 was concluded prior to the search on 23.12.2014. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to bring on record any material that was unearthed solely as a result of the search and could be considered incriminating. The additions regarding share capital and the discrepancy in Form 26AS were based on information already available in the assessee's regular books of account and did not emanate from any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of both additions was upheld. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that revaluation of assets does not generate real profit or income that can be taxed. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI cannot be claimed, even if deposited before the return filing due date, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to bona fide reasons and restored the issues on merits to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all necessary documents and evidence for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the advance was duly accounted for in the assessee's books and supported by bank statements. Furthermore, the recipient company's financial statements and a reply also confirmed the receipt of the advance against land sale. Therefore, the transaction was not sham.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 4.81 Crores was received in a preceding financial year and was not a fresh credit in the current year, thus Section 68 was not applicable. For Section 14A, the disallowance was reduced.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal, considering the matter to have become infructuous due to the subsequent CBDT circular. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when a revised return is filed before the finalization of the assessment order, especially when there is no loss to the revenue. The conditions for penalty were not met as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.