Loading ITAT cases…
220 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal held that the cash payments for land purchases were covered by the exceptions in Rule 6DD, as they were made due to practical difficulties and commercial expediency, and the genuineness of transactions was established. The Tribunal also found that the cash deposits during demonetization were against prior advances for land purchases and were duly recorded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all necessary documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness of investors, and genuineness of transactions. The AO had not commented on these evidences and had not issued notices under Section 133(6).
The Tribunal found that the appellate orders were indeed passed ex-parte and without considering the merits. It also noted that an adjournment application was overlooked. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case on merit, thereby satisfying the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing PAN details, bank statements, audited financials, and IT acknowledgments for the share applicants. The AO failed to disprove the materials placed before him, making the addition based on conjectures.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar to claiming deduction under Section 80G for CSR contributions if the conditions are met. The Assessing Officer had made inquiries and allowed the claim, thus the PCIT's revisionary action was not justified.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with specific directions. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the society is required to comply with the Co-operative Act and keep funds with banks and government securities. It observed that the assessee's total investments amounted to ₹20.22 crores, which, according to the Tribunal, were made out of surplus funds as per Section 64 read with Section 63 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2022, and thus should be treated as income from business activities. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a co-ordinate bench in M/s Bishpur Rowtara Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO. The AO was directed to treat interest from savings accounts in terms of the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. South Eastern Railway Employees Co-op Credit Society Ltd. If interest income on investments with nationalized banks is treated as income from other sources, the AO should determine corresponding expenses and allow deductions as per the decision in M/s Panditpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. vs. ITO. Interest from investments made as per Section 65 read with Section 63 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2022, is to be treated as business income, following the decision in Rabindra Bharati University Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO. The appeal for AY 2020-21 was decided mutatis mutandis.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were vague, scanty, and ambiguous, lacking specific details such as the source and timing of the funds received. The AO had merely extracted the investigation wing's report and noted a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment without demonstrating independent application of mind. The Tribunal found that the AO had acted on borrowed satisfaction, which is not permissible. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reopening of the assessment. As the appeal was allowed on this legal ground, other grounds raised by the assessee on merits were not adjudicated and were left open for future consideration if needed. The ratio decidendi is that reopening under Section 147 requires the AO to record specific reasons and demonstrate independent application of mind, not merely rely on information from other agencies without substantiation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that administrative and establishment expenses are part of charitable application and accumulation under Section 11(2) is valid if a specific purpose is mentioned, even if not a detailed plan. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the correct form as per the rules applicable for the assessment year and that Form 10B was notified subsequently. Therefore, denial of exemption solely for filing the incorrect form was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's reasons for sufficient cause. However, as the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and requested to withdraw the appeal, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as such, with liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration if warranted by future facts.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable. The reasoning was that the error in selecting the wrong section code occurred on the part of the assessee, and the CIT(Exemption) had granted liberty to correct this error by filing a fresh application. The assessee failed to avail this opportunity. Since no prejudice was caused to the assessee by the procedure followed by the CIT(Exemption) and the assessee did not pursue the remedy offered, the appeal was dismissed. Ground No. 1 was dismissed on these facts, and Ground No. 2, being general, did not require separate adjudication. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the source of funds was previously verified and accepted, and the sale transactions were genuine. The Tribunal upheld this deletion and dismissed the revenue's appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection, ruling that the reopening of assessment for AY 2013-14 was invalid as the reasons recorded were vague and the initial investment source had already been scrutinized and accepted in an earlier assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already granted full relief to the assessee by deleting the quantum additions of interest and depreciation, which formed the basis of the penalty under Section 270A. The Ld. Sr. DR also conceded that since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty was not sustainable. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed opted for the DTVSV scheme to settle the dispute. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is dismissed as infructuous because the assessee has availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However, the department is at liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application is not accepted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the voluntary disclosure of Rs. 50 lakhs did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAB because no incriminating material was found related to the addition, and the disclosure was suo motu, not correlated with any seized documents. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB was cancelled.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive it if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient supporting documents for the variation in manufacturing yield, which was the basis for the addition on account of sales suppression. The Tribunal also noted that certain liabilities for cessation were unverified and potentially old. Therefore, both issues were remanded back to the AO for fresh verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the assessee and non-representation. While dismissing grounds related to procedural irregularities, the Tribunal set aside the appeal order and restored it to the CIT(A) to decide on the merits of the addition, granting an opportunity for a hearing to the legal representative.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee. The appeals were dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, making them not maintainable as per CBDT circular. The cross-objection became infructuous as a result of the appeals being dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee. The appeals were dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, making them not maintainable as per CBDT circular. The cross-objection became infructuous as a result of the appeals being dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's petition for additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to examine the new evidence and pass a fresh speaking order, with the caveat that if the assessee fails to submit documents, the AO may decide based on existing records.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additions made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that while the assessee claimed the amounts were advances for land sale and submitted various documents, including agreements and TDPL's financial statements, these did not sufficiently establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO's findings that TDPL was not found at its registered address, its directors were untraceable, and it appeared to be a paper concern with no substantial business activity or fixed assets were not adequately rebutted by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) regarding dummy directors and accommodation entries raised serious doubts about TDPL's genuineness. The mere filing of bank statements and audited accounts of TDPL, without further corroboration or explanation for the source of funds and the nature of its business activities, was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof under Section 68. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were upheld. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additions made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that while the assessee claimed the amounts were advances for land sale and submitted various documents, including agreements and TDPL's financial statements, these did not sufficiently establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO's findings that TDPL was not found at its registered address, its directors were untraceable, and it appeared to be a paper concern with no substantial business activity or fixed assets were not adequately rebutted by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) regarding dummy directors and accommodation entries raised serious doubts about TDPL's genuineness. The mere filing of bank statements and audited accounts of TDPL, without further corroboration or explanation for the source of funds and the nature of its business activities, was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof under Section 68. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were upheld. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has to withdraw the appeal as per the VSVS scheme. The Tribunal is dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee is granted liberty to revive the appeal if the VSVS settlement is not successful.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it for adjudication. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a sufficient opportunity of being heard due to notices being sent to old email addresses. The matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with instructions to ensure notices are sent to the correct email IDs.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, and the case, involving an accommodation entry provider, did not fall under the exceptions. Furthermore, as a substantive assessment for the same income was made on the husband, the protective assessment on the assessee became infructuous and was liable to be cancelled.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to revive the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application if the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 is unsuccessful for any reason.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was required to withdraw the appeal as per the VSVS scheme. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek revival of the appeal if the VSVS proceedings were not successful.
The Tribunal followed a previous order concerning the same assessee and a similar low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed due to the low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 09/2024.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to point out any defect in the assessee's detailed valuation report and arbitrarily substituted his own valuation. The Tribunal upheld the valuation done by the assessee and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the entire capital gain. It reiterated that the assessee was not the owner of the property and the proceeds, being inheritance, were not taxable as capital gains or income from other sources. The assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed for statistical purposes.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the primary reason for filing it, which was to obtain an 80G certificate, had been fulfilled due to recent guidelines and extensions. The DR did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal, following a precedent from its co-ordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11, found that the assessee's director had admitted to a commission rate of 0.10% to 0.15% for providing accommodation entries. Accordingly, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to apply a profit rate of 0.15% instead of 1% on the total turnover for the addition.
The Tribunal found that crucial evidence supporting the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(26AAA) was not presented before the AO and was admitted as additional evidence by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to be heard by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing compliance with future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee regarding the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction and the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct an independent inquiry to verify the transaction, and the creditor was a registered NBFC, regularly assessed to tax. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal, following a precedent from its co-ordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-11, found that the assessee's director had admitted to a commission rate of 0.10% to 0.15% for providing accommodation entries. Accordingly, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to apply a profit rate of 0.15% instead of 1% on the total turnover for the addition.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders without discussing the merits of the case. The Tribunal held that interest of justice requires giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal solely on procedural grounds without examining the merits or providing a reasonable opportunity was not justified under Section 250(6). The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the six-year period for Section 153C proceedings should be computed from the date the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person received the seized documents, not the date of the original search. Consequently, the assessment year 2015-16 was found to be time-barred.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting it was not due to negligence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back, providing one last opportunity to the assessee to be heard.
The ITAT noted that the assessee submitted additional documents before it. To uphold the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back, directing the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to be heard, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal found that crucial evidence supporting the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(26AAA) was not presented before the AO and was admitted as additional evidence by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not considered the case on merit and had merely upheld the Assessing Officer's order. To meet the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that both the assessment and appellate proceedings were finalized ex-parte without hearing the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order on 09.09.2024, while the scheduled hearing date was 10.09.2024, which was one day later. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO.
The Tribunal held that as per S. No. 10 of the Guidance Note 1/2024 on the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and specifically section 91(2) of the Scheme, appeals before the ITAT are deemed to be withdrawn from the date of issue of the certificate by the Designated Authority. Furthermore, section 91(3) requires the taxpayer to withdraw appeals and furnish proof. Since the assessee had availed the VSV Scheme and provided proof of opting for it, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal also noted that if subsequent facts warranted a hearing on merits, the assessee would be at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for restoration of the appeal.