Loading ITAT cases…
207 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without properly considering the assessee's explanation and the circumstances. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that, due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the revenue's appeal became infructuous and the assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as withdrawn. It clarified that if the scheme application is not ultimately allowed, both parties have the liberty to seek restoration of their respective appeal/cross-objection.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction merely to get issues examined. The assessment order was not erroneous as the AO had taken a plausible view supported by case law and past practice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54. It relied on judicial precedents that consider the substance of the transaction and the assessee's intention, especially when payments are made within the stipulated period or when delays are due to factors beyond the assessee's control.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding proving the source of share capital, is prospective and applicable from AY 2013-14 onwards. For AY 2012-13, the assessee is not required to prove the source of source, and the evidence provided demonstrated the identity and creditworthiness of the investors.
The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. It was held that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable as the assessee's shareholding in the lending company (Rishi Trading Company Ltd.) was less than 10%, both entities were NBFCs engaged in lending, and the loan was interest-bearing and not gratuitous, in line with prior judicial pronouncements.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had considered the submissions and documentary evidence, including broker ledgers and contract notes. The Tribunal's own perusal of the broker ledgers indicated that the total amount of currency futures purchased was Rs. 29,59,78,409/- and sold was Rs. 29,71,63,841/-. The net loss in USE Currency derivatives was calculated as Rs. 11,92,144.02/-. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO erred in treating Rs. 29,65,00,718/- as the assessee's loss, as this amount represented the total of each lot traded and was not required to be recorded in the books of accounts. Only the net difference (profit or loss) is to be recorded. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, which had appreciated the assessee's submissions and evidence and allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals on grounds of delay, as the assessee's claim regarding the date of receiving the demand notice was plausible. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's argument that the income should not be taxed in the hands of the trust when beneficiaries have already offered it to tax.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. It granted the assessee liberty to file miscellaneous applications to revive the appeals if they are unsuccessful in the VSVS-24 scheme for any reason.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO had mechanically relied on the information from the Investigation Wing without applying his own mind. The cross-objection of the assessee on this ground was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was erroneous as the funds were received in preceding years and not in the relevant assessment year. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remanded to the AO for verification of exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals on grounds of delay, as the assessee's claim regarding the date of receiving the demand notice was plausible. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's argument that the income should not be taxed in the hands of the trust when beneficiaries have already offered it to tax.
The Tribunal held that the AO had no jurisdiction to make additions that were not part of the original reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. If the escaped income forming the basis of the reasons is not assessed, the AO cannot independently assess other income discovered later.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) incorrectly interpreted Section 80G(5), as an application for final registration can only be filed after provisional approval is granted, making the assessee's application timely. Citing a binding precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on the merits of the final registration application under Section 12A.
The Tribunal held that the assessee company, WBIDCL, is a public financial institution and satisfies the criteria under Section 4A of the Companies Act. The deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(vii) has been consistently accepted by the department in previous years.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. It granted the assessee liberty to file miscellaneous applications to revive the appeals if they are unsuccessful in the VSVS-24 scheme for any reason.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not oppose this request.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide details of cash deposits to both the AO and the CIT(A). However, considering that documentary evidence has now been filed before the Tribunal, the assessee is given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal partly by deleting the addition of Rs. 6.75 Crores, holding that the assessee discharged its onus under Section 68 and the AO failed to provide compelling reasons to reject the evidence. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the CIT(A)'s order, found no infirmity and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
During the hearing, the assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal by submitting a letter. The Tribunal accepted this request and consequently dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal observed that the trust was functioning regularly and its objects were not doubted. It noted that the dissolution and irrevocability clauses, though not in the original deed, were adopted by a management committee resolution and incorporated. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that registration under Section 12A cannot be denied solely for the absence of these clauses in the trust deed. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to grant registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a Sikkim old settler and proven by a residential certificate, is entitled to the exemption under Section 10(26)AAA of the Act, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The additions made by the AO were set aside.
The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's plea for opportunity, restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This allows the assessee to present documentary evidence in support of its claims.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E) and therefore set aside the order. The CIT(E) was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the addition of Rs. 42,07,739/- under Section 41(1) was invalid as the liability was disclosed and not extinguished, citing High Court judgments and its own precedent. The addition of Rs. 3,04,473/- under Section 69 for demand drafts for land registration was also deleted, as the investment was duly accounted for as fixed assets.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's submission of an affidavit explaining the inability to file documents earlier due to unavoidable reasons, decided to grant a fresh opportunity. It set aside the orders of both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A), remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a fresh order after carefully scrutinizing the new documentary evidence to be submitted by the assessee.
The CIT(A) held that the assessee acted as a Business Correspondent for Yes Bank and was authorized to collect SBNs on their behalf, directing the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no merit to interfere.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), considering the COVID period and the non-action on the Section 154 application. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the Ld. CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was set aside. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The CIT(A) observed that the AO had made a double addition. While confirming the addition for unexplained receipts, the CIT(A) deleted the addition for the application of these funds, considering it as income application. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not dispute the sales or the profit margin disclosed by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that if purchases were not proved genuine, only the profit element could be added, not the entire purchase amount, as there was no allegation of purchases from an unexplained source.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the change of residence and non-receipt of notices. It set aside the orders of both the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO, remanding the matter back to the AO to provide a fresh opportunity of being heard to the assessee, ensuring compliance with earlier ITAT directions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality applied to the cooperative society and its members, rendering Section 269SS inapplicable to such transactions. Additionally, since the amount in question was already added to the assessee's income during assessment, it lost its character as a loan/deposit, thus making the penalty under Section 271D not leviable due to the presence of 'reasonable cause' as per Section 273B.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had noted the assessee's barter-basis contention but failed to address it, even after sending documents for a remand report which the AO did not furnish. To ensure justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification, instructing the AO to consider the fresh evidences and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, including payment details, E-way bills, and supplier confirmations, to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of transactions. The ITAT noted the AO failed to conduct a meaningful enquiry into the submitted evidence.
The Tribunal found that the original assessment was a limited scrutiny confined to cash deposits, which the Ld. AO had duly examined. Invoking Section 263 jurisdiction for issues (loans and advances) not covered by the limited scrutiny was deemed invalid, as the twin conditions (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) for Section 263, as per *Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT*, were not satisfied. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's revisionary order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was incorrect as the department's inconsistent stance (accepting amortized income in earlier years but demanding receipt basis for the impugned year) resulted in excess taxation for the assessee. An additional ground regarding deduction under Section 80IA was admitted and remanded.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The primary reason for dismissal was the low tax effect, which was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, which directs subordinate authorities not to challenge orders of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal if the tax effect of the relief granted is below this threshold, unless specific exceptions apply. The Revenue's representative failed to demonstrate that the case fell under any of these exceptions. The Tribunal noted that if, upon re-verification by the Assessing Officer, it is found that the tax effect exceeds the limit or the case falls under an exception, the Revenue would be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for the revival of the appeal within the prescribed time limits. No other issue was decided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it bonafide and in the interest of substantial justice. Following a precedent in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11, the Tribunal restored the issue for AY 2011-12 to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is granted a reasonable hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing all necessary documents, clarifications, and confirmations for the loans, which were available to the lower authorities. It found that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to correctly appreciate the facts and evidence on record, leading to an incorrect addition.
The Tribunal considered the documents, orders of the authorities below, and arguments. It noted that the discrepancies pointed out by the AO in the audit report were relevant and indicated an oversight in preparing the report. The Tribunal found it unclear when and how the books of accounts were presented to the AO for examination and comparison of cash sales with book entries. While the assessee filed extensive cash deposit statements, the Tribunal felt that accurately matching sales with consequential book entries was best done at the AO's level. Therefore, considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for re-examination of the books to ascertain if cash sales were duly reflected. The AO was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee, who was expected to avail it to prove its bonafides. The issue of personal hearing was not explicitly decided but impliedly addressed by remanding the matter for proper examination by the AO.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance before lower authorities but, considering reasons beyond the assessee's control, accepted the plea for another opportunity. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with directions for the AO to grant a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deleting the additions based on additional evidence without confronting the AO, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the additional evidence and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal ruled that the cash gifts were received in the previous assessment year. The deposits in the impugned assessment year were made from the opening cash balance, not from fresh receipts in the current year. Therefore, any addition for unexplained marriage gifts should have been made in the year of receipt (AY 2016-17), not in the present assessment year (AY 2017-18).
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the same sales were already included in the audited books of accounts and offered to tax. It further noted that the AO added the same amount twice, which is contrary to the Act. The Tribunal also opined that it is not the AO's job to determine if sales were made in legal tender, but rather the RBI's role to take action for such violations.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's method of accounting (Project Completion Method and AS-9) was acceptable and had been accepted in the preceding year. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the deletion of the addition related to interest expenses on advances made to land co-owners.
The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed due to withdrawal by the assessee. It granted liberty to the assessee to file an application for restoration of the appeal if the application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not approved by the competent authority.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it bonafide. It restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to present its case on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that for unabated assessments under Section 153A, no additions can be made unless based on incriminating material found during the search, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal ruled that once the original income for which reasons were recorded under Section 148(2) is not added, the AO loses jurisdiction to make additions for any other income discovered during reassessment proceedings. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the reasons for reopening to be vague and scanty, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid from the outset.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹46,35,884 was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted that the assessee carried out trading operations and made cash sales during the demonetization period, including reporting sales to VAT authorities. The Tribunal found that the same amount was brought to tax twice: first, by inclusion in the audited books of accounts, and second, by the AO's addition under Section 69A. The Tribunal emphasized that the same income cannot be taxed twice. The Tribunal also reasoned that it was not the AO's role to determine if sales were made in legal tender; such violations of RBI circulars should be addressed by the competent authority. Relying on the decision of a co-ordinate bench in Vidyasagar Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. vs. ACIT, the Tribunal concluded that the deposits could not be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, as the source was explained. The addition was ordered to be deleted. Ground no. 2 was not adjudicated as the addition was deleted.