Loading ITAT cases…
369 orders · Page 1 of 8
For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 70,00,000/- addition. It found that the AO's basis for treating the transaction as accommodation entries (statement of Mr. Praveen Agarwal) was not provided to the assessee during assessment proceedings under Section 153A. The Tribunal reiterated the principle that additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the search, and in the absence thereof, the AO lacks jurisdiction for additions in an unabated assessment. The ratio is that assessment under Section 153A cannot be based on material not disclosed to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning as for AY 2011-12 and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 1,25,00,000/- addition. It noted that the unsecured loans were repaid with interest through banking channels, with TDS deducted. The CIT(A) had found that all documentary evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, ITRs, and balance sheets, were furnished. The Tribunal relied on the principle that once repayment is established, credit entries cannot be viewed in isolation, citing PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. and a co-ordinate bench decision in Poddar Realtors. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 70,00,000/- addition. It found that the AO's basis for treating the transaction as accommodation entries (statement of Mr. Praveen Agarwal) was not provided to the assessee during assessment proceedings under Section 153A. The Tribunal reiterated the principle that additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the search, and in the absence thereof, the AO lacks jurisdiction for additions in an unabated assessment. The ratio is that assessment under Section 153A cannot be based on material not disclosed to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning as for AY 2011-12 and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 1,25,00,000/- addition. It noted that the unsecured loans were repaid with interest through banking channels, with TDS deducted. The CIT(A) had found that all documentary evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, ITRs, and balance sheets, were furnished. The Tribunal relied on the principle that once repayment is established, credit entries cannot be viewed in isolation, citing PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. and a co-ordinate bench decision in Poddar Realtors. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to diligently pursue the appeal at various stages and the ex parte nature of previous orders. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing, with a nominal cost imposed on the assessee.
The tribunal observed that both lower authorities failed to properly ascertain the total income of the assessee. Citing principles of natural justice, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination of the total taxable income, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the rectification order under Section 154, which had already resolved the issue of timely filing of Form 10BB and granted the Section 11 exemption. As the assessee's grievance was redressed and the audit report was filed before processing, the CIT(A)'s order was rendered infructuous. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the Section 11 exemption.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions and material on record, found that a net profit rate of 2% would be reasonable. Accordingly, the AO was directed to restrict the estimation to 2% of turnover, and the remaining addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with notices during reassessment and appellate proceedings, leading to an ex parte order by the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erroneously disposed of the appeal by referring to a rectification order instead of the assessment order. The tribunal found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable in law and on facts due to lack of evidence.
For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 70,00,000/- addition. It found that the AO's basis for treating the transaction as accommodation entries (statement of Mr. Praveen Agarwal) was not provided to the assessee during assessment proceedings under Section 153A. The Tribunal reiterated the principle that additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the search, and in the absence thereof, the AO lacks jurisdiction for additions in an unabated assessment. The ratio is that assessment under Section 153A cannot be based on material not disclosed to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning as for AY 2011-12 and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 1,25,00,000/- addition. It noted that the unsecured loans were repaid with interest through banking channels, with TDS deducted. The CIT(A) had found that all documentary evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, ITRs, and balance sheets, were furnished. The Tribunal relied on the principle that once repayment is established, credit entries cannot be viewed in isolation, citing PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. and a co-ordinate bench decision in Poddar Realtors. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal condoned the three-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that technical lapses should not override substantial justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the dividend income from equity shares was within the exemption limit under Section 115BBDA, and dividend income from mutual funds was exempt under Section 10(35). The adjustment made by the CPC treating it as business income was erroneous and bad in law.
The tribunal held that the discrepancy in cash in hand was due to a genuine clerical mistake where the bank balance was erroneously clubbed with cash. The assessee substantiated the bank balance with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that a revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked against an assessment order that has already been annulled or set aside. The PCIT's revisionary order was deemed null and void due to lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's severe illness. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without examining the merits of the case and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO resulted in double addition and taxation of the same income, i.e., interest on FDR earned during the year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee follows a system of accounting where interest on FDR is reduced from work-in-progress. The audited annual accounts showed that work-in-progress was reduced by the amount of interest on FDR, and consequently, it was not shown on the revenue side of the Profit and Loss account. The Tribunal found the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) to be well-reasoned and cogent, taking a correct view of the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The decision in ITA No. 1616/KOL/2024 for AY 2011-12 was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA Nos. 1617 to 1619/KOL/2024 for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹69,57,500/- under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, resulted in double taxation. The Tribunal noted that the cash deposited was treated as business receipts by the assessee and accepted as such by the AO and CIT(A). The assessee's books of account were not rejected, and the net profit was calculated based on these accepted books. The Tribunal found that Section 69A is applicable to unexplained money not recorded in the books of account. However, in this case, the cash sales were recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in ITO vs. Joydeb Kundu and JMK Exports vs. ACIT, which held that if cash deposits are shown as sales/business receipts and the books are not rejected, the same amount cannot be added under Section 69A as it amounts to double taxation. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to Section 68 was not applicable as the assessee was a company in which the public are substantially interested.
The tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal, and the revenue did not object. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal with liberty to seek revival. This was granted because the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the appeal was not pressed at that stage.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of agricultural income and past savings as the source of the cash deposits was not rebutted by the Department. Considering the assessee's age, remoteness of location, and the nature of transactions, the addition was deemed unsustainable.
The ITAT, considering the importance of the additional evidence, decided that the ends of justice would be met by restoring the appeal to the Ld. AO for fresh examination and decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal before the Kolkata bench due to a technical issue and because the jurisdiction for the case lies with the Amritsar bench. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), finding that the interest on FDRs was already accounted for by being reduced from the work-in-progress and, therefore, had been offered to tax, thus avoiding double taxation. The Tribunal relied on a prior jurisdictional ITAT judgment for AY 2017-18 which had decided a similar issue in the assessee's favour.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because the notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward 44(4), Kolkata, while the assessment itself was framed by ITO Ward 3(3), Kolkata. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including decisions from the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court, which stipulate that the officer who frames the assessment must be the one who issues the jurisdictional notice under section 143(2).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record any satisfaction, which is a prerequisite for a valid order u/s 148A(d) of the Act for reopening assessment. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of interest levy was pending before the AO for verification. Both parties agreed that the matter should be restored to the AO for verification and adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), finding that the interest on FDRs was already accounted for by being reduced from the work-in-progress and, therefore, had been offered to tax, thus avoiding double taxation. The Tribunal relied on a prior jurisdictional ITAT judgment for AY 2017-18 which had decided a similar issue in the assessee's favour.
The Tribunal held that the delay in uploading the audit report due to a bona fide technical issue should not deny exemption under Sections 11 and 12, especially when the report was signed and available before the due date. The intimation issued was quashed.
The Tribunal held that since a part of the loan from the same lender was accepted as genuine in the preceding year, and there was no fresh adverse material, the remaining loan and interest could not be disallowed. The reassessment was initiated based on a total amount of ₹66,14,712, but the addition was only ₹25,00,000.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had repaid the unsecured loans along with interest through banking channels after deducting TDS. The CIT(A) had made a clear finding that no benefit was derived by the assessee as the loans were repaid. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence to the authorities. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the addition was not covered under Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd., which held that once loan repayment is established by documentary evidence, credit entries cannot be viewed in isolation, ignoring debit entries. The Tribunal also found support from a co-ordinate bench decision in Poddar Realtors Vs. ITO. Consequently, no interference with the CIT(A)'s order was warranted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's valid adjournment request. In the interest of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), finding that the interest on FDRs was already accounted for by being reduced from the work-in-progress and, therefore, had been offered to tax, thus avoiding double taxation. The Tribunal relied on a prior jurisdictional ITAT judgment for AY 2017-18 which had decided a similar issue in the assessee's favour.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the penalty order was indeed barred by limitation. The communication of the penalty order to the assessee was dated significantly later than the date it was purportedly passed, with a different DIN number, indicating it was not effectively passed within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that the AO's procedure for reopening the assessment was infirm. Regarding the salary disallowance, the Tribunal stated that the AO cannot interfere with the business decision of the assessee regarding the number of employees. The addition on account of sale of shares was set aside as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, which was not properly commented upon by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the impugned assessment was unabated on the date of the search. It noted that the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act had already expired, meaning no assessment was pending on the search date. In such a scenario, the Tribunal found that the AO cannot make an addition unless there is incriminating seized material to back it. The Tribunal considered the assessee's case to be squarely covered by the decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The ratio decidendi is that in an unabated assessment, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal agreed that the issue needed to be examined in light of the additional evidences. Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had filed the requisite forms, thereby seeking to withdraw the current appeal. The Tribunal noted the assessee's prayer for restoration of the appeal if the dispute could not be settled under the scheme. In view of the application for withdrawal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the penalty order was indeed barred by limitation. The communication of the penalty order to the assessee was dated significantly later than the date it was purportedly passed, with a different DIN number, indicating it was not effectively passed within the prescribed time.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had received Rs. 7.05 crores, not Rs. 15.05 crores, as an unsecured loan from M/s Juhi Advisory Pvt. Ltd., and this amount was repaid partly in the financial year 2015-2016 and partly in 2016-2017. The loan was advanced from FDR maturities, and the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld following the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Ambe Tradecorp.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided comprehensive details and evidence, including a Section 80G certificate, to the AO during the original Section 143(3) assessment in response to a Section 142(1) notice. The discrepancy in the tax audit report was a mistake rectified by the auditor. Since the AO had duly examined and accepted the claim, the original assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest, rendering the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 invalid.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans, noting that repayment had been made and evidence of genuineness was provided. Consequently, the deletion of interest disallowance u/s 69C was also affirmed. For bogus purchases, the ITAT confirmed the 5% disallowance as a profit element, acknowledging that material was consumed and sales were made. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared 5% profit on unrecorded sales. The AO's estimation of 8% was reduced to 5.5% by the CIT(A) without substantive basis. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the suo moto profit disclosed during the search proceedings was reasonable. The Tribunal also noted that co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal had applied 5% on unrecorded sales in the cited cases. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to accept the profit at the rate of 5% as declared by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared 5% profit on unrecorded sales. The AO's estimation of 8% was reduced to 5.5% by the CIT(A) without substantive basis. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the suo moto profit disclosed during the search proceedings was reasonable. The Tribunal also noted that co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal had applied 5% on unrecorded sales in the cited cases. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to accept the profit at the rate of 5% as declared by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal perused the withdrawal application and found it appropriate to allow the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared 5% profit on unrecorded sales. The AO's estimation of 8% was reduced to 5.5% by the CIT(A) without substantive basis. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the suo moto profit disclosed during the search proceedings was reasonable. The Tribunal also noted that co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal had applied 5% on unrecorded sales in the cited cases. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to accept the profit at the rate of 5% as declared by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared 5% profit on unrecorded sales. The AO's estimation of 8% was reduced to 5.5% by the CIT(A) without substantive basis. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the suo moto profit disclosed during the search proceedings was reasonable. The Tribunal also noted that co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal had applied 5% on unrecorded sales in the cited cases. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to accept the profit at the rate of 5% as declared by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) was invalid because the Ld. AO failed to strike off the irrelevant limb or indicate the relevant limb, rendering it mechanical and without application of mind. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order.