Loading ITAT cases…
191 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) deleted additions based on facts not available to the AO. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) might have been influenced by documents not presented to the AO. It was also noted that the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO.
The Tribunal found that the assessee, though not a cooperative bank under Section 80P(4), had collected the SBNs from its members against loan recoveries. It was established that the assessee provided sufficient details regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the members and their deposits. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the addition made by the lower authorities as unexplained income was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, giving effect to the DRP's directions, was invalid and a nullity because it lacked the mandatory signature of the concerned Assessing Officer. Citing prior judgments, the Tribunal reiterated that signing is a legal requirement and not a curable procedural defect, thus quashing the unsigned order.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had validly exercised the option under Section 115BAA for AY 2021-22 and revenue authorities had not found any error in such claim and allowed the option for that year, the assessee was not required to exercise the option again for subsequent assessment years as per Section 115BAA(5). Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the lower tax rate of 25% under Section 115BAA.
The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to produce any evidence of a show cause notice being issued to the assessee before making adjustments in the intimation u/s 143(1). Emphasizing the mandatory nature of a show cause notice under the first proviso to Section 143(1) for any adjustments, the Tribunal quashed the intimation issued u/s 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the transaction was a refund of a trade advance and not an unexplained expenditure. Since the amount was recorded in books and transacted through banking channels, Section 69C was not attracted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, recognizing the rectification application as a reasonable cause. It held that the issuance of a show cause notice is a condition precedent for an intimation under Section 143(1), and changing the assessee's status without one is not permissible. Consequently, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the club entrance fees of Rs.11,80,000/- were a legitimate business expenditure and should be allowed. Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Ltd.), it affirmed that tax authorities must grant relief if facts justify, even if no specific claim was initially made, and directed the AO to allow the deduction and recompute the total income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s change in the basis of addition without notice violated principles of natural justice. It also noted that the Assessing Officer's addition lacked detailed examination and rejection of books of account. Consequently, the entire matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with directions to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that there was neither under-reporting nor misreporting of income. The deletion of the major addition under Section 80P was a key factor in this decision.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme and had formally requested to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) lacked the power to set aside the case after 01.06.2001. Consequently, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the assessment order back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to raise all legal issues, including the validity of the notice under Section 143(2).
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A), finding no infirmity in it. The CIT(A) had correctly applied the principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding Section 80P deductions for co-operative societies, even if they lend to members for non-agricultural purposes, unless Section 80P(4) specifically applies.
The ITAT restored the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. This is conditional on the assessee paying Rs. 50,000/- per appeal to Legal Aid Services within 60 days, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)'s order will be confirmed.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and, considering an affidavit from the assessee explaining the reasons for non-compliance and undertaking to comply, decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The order confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A), finding no infirmity in it. The CIT(A) had correctly applied the principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding Section 80P deductions for co-operative societies, even if they lend to members for non-agricultural purposes, unless Section 80P(4) specifically applies.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for delay plausible and not false. Consequently, it condoned the delay in filing both appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO for proper verification. The AO was directed to re-examine the matter considering the assessee's submissions and the documents filed, particularly the role of the assessee as an authorized signatory for corporate entities in the property transaction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons bonafide. It observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits due to non-compliance. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case, thereby setting aside the AO's order as confirmed by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This restoration was made conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s order would stand confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was unsustainable because no show cause notice had been issued to the assessee as required by the first proviso to Section 143. The addition made under Section 143(1) was therefore deleted, and it was clarified that verification could only be done under Section 143(3).
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for delay plausible and not false. Consequently, it condoned the delay in filing both appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT restored the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity in the interest of natural justice. This is conditional on the assessee paying Rs. 50,000/- per appeal to Legal Aid Services within 60 days, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)'s order will be confirmed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal issued a Corrigendum Order to rectify this error. The correct respondent's address, "I.T.O., Ward - 27(1), Kolkata, Durgachak, Haldia, West Bengal, 721602", was specified, modifying the original order to this extent.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2022-23, a surcharge of 10% should apply as the income was below Rs. 1 Crore, and for AY 2023-24, NIL surcharge should apply as the income did not exceed Rs. 50,000. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-calculate the tax liability accordingly, including interest as per law on the revised tax levied.
The Tribunal noted that as per S. No. 10 of the Guidance Note 1/2024 on the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, appeals before the ITAT are deemed to be withdrawn from the date of issue of a certificate by the Designated Authority, as per section 91(2) of the Scheme. Furthermore, section 91(3) requires the taxpayer to withdraw appeals and furnish proof. Since the assessee requested the withdrawal of the appeal, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal 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. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The assessment order and the CIT(A) order were not decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that funds collected for building and repair development expenditure, as per a trustee resolution, were in the nature of corpus contributions and not revenue receipts. Therefore, these amounts should be excluded from gross receipts for calculating exemption.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the revenue challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s order on merits but failed to challenge the legal issue of 'change of opinion' on which the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal. As the legal issue decided by the Ld. CIT(A) remained unchallenged and became final, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, and the Assessing Officer failed to adequately address the assessee's objections regarding the genuineness of the transaction and that the income was already disclosed.
The Tribunal ruled that the penalty notice issued by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 was legally flawed because it failed to specify the precise charge for the penalty and lacked recorded satisfaction in the assessment order. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the levied penalty for both assessment years.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowances for oil & fuel expenses and truck running expenses, finding the AO's basis to be surmises without valid proof. It directed the AO to allow interest on the self-occupied house loan under Section 24(b). For the non-deduction of TDS on finance charges and the difference in secured loan, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for verification and re-adjudication after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. To ensure natural justice, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case, with a caution for prompt cooperation.
The Tribunal ruled that the penalty notice issued by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 was legally flawed because it failed to specify the precise charge for the penalty and lacked recorded satisfaction in the assessment order. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the levied penalty for both assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and paid taxes. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals) order, remitting the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee one more opportunity of being heard, in adherence to the principles of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is contrary to the policy decision of the Department as laid down in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal is Rs. 60,00,000/-. The tax effect in the present appeal was noted to be less than this amount. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Department in limine as not maintainable. The Tribunal also cautioned that if the Revenue later finds the tax effect to be more than Rs. 60 lakhs or that the appeal is otherwise maintainable despite a low tax effect, they are at liberty to move a miscellaneous petition to recall this order.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2022-23, a surcharge of 10% should apply as the income was below Rs. 1 Crore, and for AY 2023-24, NIL surcharge should apply as the income did not exceed Rs. 50,000. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-calculate the tax liability accordingly, including interest as per law on the revised tax levied.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, noting that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the subscribers were established, with most directors appearing and giving statements. The high share premium was justified by the assessee's investment in a joint venture with a globally recognized brand (Delsey SA), and similar share allotments were accepted in prior assessment years.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(Exemption)'s orders were ex-parte due to non-prosecution by the assessee. In the interest of justice, it set aside these orders and remitted the matter back to the ld. CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal deleted the addition u/s 68, finding that the share application money was received in the preceding year and later converted to share capital or refunded, citing relevant judicial precedents. The addition u/s 14A was also deleted as no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year. The issue regarding the AIR mismatch/Section 50C, which pertained to assets treated as stock-in-trade and the applicability of Section 43(A), was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was invalid. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 143(2) clearly indicated 'Limited Scrutiny' and was selected under CASS. However, the subsequent notice under Section 142(1) along with a questionnaire contained 16 detailed queries, effectively treating the case as a complete scrutiny. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if the AO intended to conduct a detailed examination beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, proper procedure, including recording satisfaction and converting it to complete scrutiny, should have been followed. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of coordinate benches in Shri Vijay Kumar and Dev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd., which supported the view that a limited scrutiny assessment cannot be converted into a full scrutiny assessment without following due process. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed as bad in law. The issue regarding the applicability of Section 56(2) was not decided as the assessment itself was set aside.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the transfer pricing adjustment, citing a coordinate bench decision and Supreme Court ruling. It also allowed the appeal against penalty proceedings and interest levy, and restored the issues of credit for advance tax and DDT to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received for the failure of performance guarantee parameters of the machinery is a capital receipt and outside the purview of taxation. The compensation was not intended to subsidize the cost of the capital asset but to compensate for the revenue loss due to underperformance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was not justified. It noted that the recipient, M/s Srei Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., had offered the interest income to tax, which was a key finding from the first round of appeal. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, stating that no disallowance should be made if the payee has offered the income to tax. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that Form 26A was not applicable for the Assessment Year 2008-09, as it was introduced by amendment in 2012. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition. Regarding the deduction under Section 80IA, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s finding to be perverse and factually incorrect. It noted that the assessee had filed its return within the time allowed under Section 139(1), although it did not claim the deduction initially. The Tribunal reiterated that a claim for deduction could be made before the appellate authority for the first time, as had happened in the first round of litigation where the CIT(A) had allowed the deduction by admitting an additional ground. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to allow the deduction of ₹1,08,41,626/- under Section 80IA.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind or recording a clear finding as to the escapement of income. Citing precedents, it was decided that the reopening was invalid and a nullity in law, thus quashing the assessment order.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(Exemption)'s orders were ex-parte due to non-prosecution by the assessee. In the interest of justice, it set aside these orders and remitted the matter back to the ld. CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed explained the source of the cash deposits. It noted that ₹80,00,000 was cash held on behalf of M/s Dadi Griha Nirmal Private Limited, which was duly reflected in the company's balance sheet and accepted by the Settlement Commission in its order under Section 245D(4). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that denying the assessee's claim would lead to double taxation, as the source of this cash had already been settled. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the AO had not commented on the explanation provided by the assessee for the balance deposit of ₹7,36,000, which was supported by the opening cash balance and cash withdrawn from the bank, and the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cash available in hand. The Tribunal concluded that since the source of the entire cash deposits was explained, no addition was warranted under Section 68. The addition of ₹85,71,000 was deleted.
Citing CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals before the Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as non-maintainable due to the low tax effect. It was noted that the case did not fall under any of the exceptions specified in the instruction. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if re-verification shows the tax effect is higher or the case falls under exceptions.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹16,36,800/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect and could not be sustained. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a retired Government employee, had received ₹83 lacs as retirement benefits. The investment in LIC was made from cash received from I-Core Services Limited, which was a repayment of an FDR. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient sources to make the investment in LIC, and the evidence filed by the assessee corroborated this. The Tribunal observed that the cash received from I-Core Services Limited was the source of the LIC investment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. No issue was expressly left undecided.