Loading ITAT cases…
239 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal noted that the grounds of appeal for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 were similar to AY 2012-13, and the issue of repairs and maintenance was not applicable for AY 2013-14. Consequently, the appeals for these three years were dismissed as 'Not Pressed'.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2016-17, the addition of Rs. 10,02,741/- on account of interest on unsecured loan from M/s Swarnapriya Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the issue of the loan itself for the preceding AY 2015-16 had been decided in favour of the assessee on the ground that no incriminating material was found during the search. Since the interest issue was consequential, and the primary issue was decided in favour of the assessee, the addition was deleted. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. For AY 2017-18, the addition of Rs. 2,55,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit was also deleted. The Tribunal observed that the loans were raised from parties from whom money was raised in earlier assessment years, which were unabated and decided in favour of the assessee. The AO's reliance on an old investigation report and statement was not considered sufficient to treat the loans as non-genuine. For AY 2016-17, the addition of Rs. 1,18,00,000/- for cash payment out of books was set aside. The Tribunal found that the AO made the addition based on loose documents which were rough notings and did not specify the location of expenditure. In contrast, the assessee had fully disclosed the expenditure, which was accounted for in the books with supporting bills and vouchers. Therefore, the addition was deleted. Similarly, for AY 2017-18, the addition of Rs. 42,00,000/- for cash payment out of books was allowed in favour of the assessee, following the decision in the AY 2016-17 appeal. All the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT's policy on reducing litigation due to the low tax effect. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal noted that the grounds of appeal for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 were similar to AY 2012-13, and the issue of repairs and maintenance was not applicable for AY 2013-14. Consequently, the appeals for these three years were dismissed as 'Not Pressed'.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation at various stages but found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the issue afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation, though disallowed, was a bona fide mistake and not a deliberate misreporting of income. Citing Supreme Court judgments, it was found that a mere incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by investigating issues beyond the limited scrutiny scope without following CBDT guidelines for converting to complete scrutiny. The assessment order was deemed void and invalid.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing due to issues with accessing the ITBA portal. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits after providing a fair hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) did not make sufficient efforts to gather corroborative evidence for the alleged cash receipts. The Tribunal found the additions were not sustainable based on the available material.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable. It noted that the assessee's business generated cash sales, and similar deposits in prior years were not questioned. The Tribunal found no specific reason for disbelieving the cash deposits during the demonetization period.
The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was not justified as the information regarding CCM misuse lacked concrete evidence of evasion and the addition was made without providing specific details of the alleged loss, violating natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law due to being based on incorrect information. The addition made under Section 68 for the loan and the disallowance under Section 14A were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond 4 years was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion and there was no failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and additions were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable. Regarding the addition on account of sale of shares (Rs. 4,67,963/-), the Tribunal noted that the AO relied solely on information from the departmental online system without providing any supporting documents to the assessee. The AO did not demonstrate that the assessee had purchased these shares in earlier years and sold them in the assessment year. Therefore, this addition was deemed unsustainable. Concerning the disallowance of agricultural income (Rs. 96,000/-), the Tribunal observed that the Revenue officers failed to demonstrate how the assessee had claimed this income, noting the assessee's stand that it was added back and not claimed. This aspect was not verified by either authority. Crucially, the Tribunal held that all three additions were not made on the basis of any seized material, but were routine disallowances. It relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. CIT, Central -3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), which mandates that additions in search assessments should be based on seized material. As no seized material was referred to by the AO for any of the additions, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted all the additions. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as no justification was provided in the assessment order. Therefore, the addition was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the reasons to believe were vague and based on borrowed satisfaction. The additions were also found unsustainable on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitted the appeal, and restored the issue to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to admit the application for registration and decide it after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal, taking a liberal view, restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to file additional evidence and make submissions, with the CIT(A) to provide a speaking order after a proper hearing.
The Tribunal found it unfair for the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal solely on delay without examining the merits, especially when reasons for delay were provided. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a decision on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged its initial burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The Revenue authorities failed to dispute the correctness of the provided details with specific evidence.
The Tribunal held that additions under section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is seized during a search. Since no such material was found, the Assessing Officer correctly accepted the returned income. Therefore, the Principal CIT's order under section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is sanctioned under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), all claims not part of the plan are extinguished, and the corporate debtor starts with a clean slate. Therefore, pending income tax proceedings against the corporate debtor are barred.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, holding that the amount was already taxed and taxing it again would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024 which directs subordinate authorities not to challenge orders with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/-.
The Tribunal held that late filing of Form 10DA does not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 80JJAA if the form was available to the AO before the assessment proceedings concluded. The issue is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. G. M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 09/2024, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is sanctioned under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), all claims not part of the plan are extinguished, and the corporate debtor starts with a clean slate. Therefore, pending income tax proceedings against the corporate debtor are barred.
The Tribunal held that the allotment letter, coupled with payments made through account payee cheques from June 2010 onwards, should be construed as an agreement to sell. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) allows for the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement to be considered if the agreement date and registration date are different. The crucial requirement is that the agreement should be followed by payments through banking channels to establish its veracity. The assessee had demonstrated the genuineness of the allotment letter by showing payments made via account payee cheques. Therefore, the valuation date for the purpose of any deemed gift should be the date of the first payment, which was around June 2010. The Assessing Officer erred in taking the valuation as on 28th October 2014. The Tribunal also referred to CBDT Circular No. 872 and 471, which recognize allotment letters as agreements for purchase. Consequently, the addition made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits regarding the denial of exemption under Sections 11 & 12 due to a delayed audit report.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to challenge the DVO's report or submit documents regarding property valuation. Both issues were remanded to the AO for re-examination with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the same issues were already examined and dropped by the AO with the Pr. CIT's prior approval. Therefore, the revision order was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the details of cash deposits and withdrawals furnished by the assessee. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh, considering the assessee's role as an entry provider and allowing set-off for commission income if offered for taxation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had duly demonstrated the cash deposits were from withdrawals made within a short span. The source of the cash was proven, negating the AO's grounds for addition.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision. It was held that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for the share capital and premium received. The pattern of transactions indicated round-tripping of funds.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the enhanced monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- specified by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable unless it fell under the provided exceptions.
The Tribunal held that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to deny exemption for late or non-filing of returns. The action of the lower authorities in denying exemption on this ground is not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the merits of the case were not considered. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination and a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition as the assessee had sufficient cash balance to explain the deposits, and the AO's addition was based on assumption. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit and the case did not fall under any exceptional category.
The Tribunal held that the doctrine of merger did not apply as the additions made in the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) were not reversed by the AO in the subsequent order u/s 143(3). Since both rectification and appeal proceedings were pending, there was no occasion for adjudication on the issue in this appeal.