Loading ITAT cases…
189 orders · Page 2 of 4
The tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was vague as it mechanically included both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) without striking off the irrelevant one or specifying the exact charge. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the tribunal concluded that such a vague notice rendered the penalty proceedings null and void, thereby quashing the penalty.
The Tribunal held that interest expenditure is allowable only if wholly and exclusively for earning income. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance, considering only interest-bearing funds advanced as interest-free loans, and also to re-examine the charging of interest under Section 234A based on the extended due date.
The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10CCB before the order under Section 143(1) is a curable procedural defect and constitutes sufficient compliance, thus entitling the assessee to the deduction. It relied on Supreme Court and Kolkata High Court precedents, directing the AO to allow the claim.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee's cash deposits represented accounted professional fees, with the cash receipts and bank deposits properly explained. Therefore, the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act were not applicable, and the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) were set aside. A duplicate appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing all the required documentary evidence to the AO, which was acknowledged in the assessment order. The AO's sole basis for the addition was the non-compliance with summons under Section 131 by the investors, which prevented the recording of their depositions and thus, the verification of their genuineness and creditworthiness. However, the AO did not point out any defect or deficiency in the documents submitted by the assessee. The CIT(A) provided conflicting findings regarding the evidence. The Tribunal found that the addition made merely on the ground of non-compliance with summons, without any adverse comment on the documents filed, was not sustainable. Relying on the precedents cited by the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions in similar cases for other assessment years. It found that the interest income had already been assessed in the hands of the Netherlands entity and taxing it again in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons for the delay as bonafide due to company merger and employee changes. It then quashed the reopening of assessment, holding that the reasons recorded under Section 148(2) were vague, scanty, and ambiguous, and the approval granted by the PCIT under Section 151 was mechanical, without proper application of mind.
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, deeming it reasoned and speaking, and affirmed that a Gross Profit rate, not a net profit rate, should be applied to undisclosed transactions. Consequently, both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid as it was invoked solely on the AO's proposal without the PCIT recording independent satisfaction regarding the erroneous and prejudicial nature of the assessment. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT must provide objective findings to justify invoking Section 263, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the PCIT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the sale of investments amounting to ₹11,56,20,000/- was not an unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal after considering a remand report from the AO, which accepted that the sum was on account of the sale of investment, not an unsecured loan. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law arising and upheld the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition. Regarding the Cross Objection, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s direction to add 5% of the sale consideration as net profit was without any basis or presumption, and therefore set aside this direction, allowing the assessee's Cross Objection. For the assessment years where assessments were unabated, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A without any incriminating material seized during the search, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Revenue's appeals in these cases were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had already adjusted the ₹3,80,401/- paid towards prior years' leave encashment in its computation of income. It held that the AO (CPC) had no jurisdiction to disallow an actual payment made against leave encashment for prior years. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the sale of investments amounting to ₹11,56,20,000/- was not an unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal after considering a remand report from the AO, which accepted that the sum was on account of the sale of investment, not an unsecured loan. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law arising and upheld the CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition. Regarding the Cross Objection, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s direction to add 5% of the sale consideration as net profit was without any basis or presumption, and therefore set aside this direction, allowing the assessee's Cross Objection. For the assessment years where assessments were unabated, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions under Section 153A without any incriminating material seized during the search, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Revenue's appeals in these cases were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the initial admission of 2% commission was recorded, it was later retracted. Considering a similar case and the fact that the commission rate was disputed, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 0.10% of the total turnover, deleting the remaining amount.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. AO's rejection of the books of account under Section 145(3) was invalid as no specific defects were recorded and findings were contradictory. It further ruled that the addition of ₹1,42,72,500/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was improper, following judicial precedents that discourage additions based on conjecture when sales are duly recorded in books. Grounds 2 and 3 of the assessee's appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits despite multiple opportunities. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate promptly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea for remittance was valid. It noted that the AO had not provided the assessee with copies of statements from brokers, directors, and entry operators, despite requests. The assessee had also requested an opportunity to cross-examine these individuals to ascertain the truth. Citing a coordinate bench's decision in *Amit Agarawl & ors.* (ITA No. 2592/Kol/2019), which dealt with a similar issue of non-supply of material gathered by the AO and lack of effective opportunity for cross-examination under Section 142(3) read with Section 142(2), the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to make available the gathered material and provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing and cross-examination to the assessee before completing the assessment in accordance with the law. Consequently, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea for remittance was justified. It noted that the AO had not provided the assessee with copies of statements from brokers, directors, and entry operators, which were relied upon for the assessment order. Furthermore, the assessee's request for an opportunity to cross-examine these individuals was also denied. Citing a coordinate bench decision in Amit Agarwal & ors. (ITA No. 2592/Kol/2019), which dealt with similar issues of non-supply of material and denial of cross-examination opportunity, the Tribunal agreed to remit the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to provide the material gathered during the inquiry and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, including the effective opportunity to cross-examine the entry operators, before completing the assessment in accordance with law. All other grounds were rendered academic.
The ITAT condoned the 334-day delay in filing the appeal before it, noting the CIT(A) had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 166-day delay without condonation. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, directing the CIT(A) to decide the issue without being influenced by earlier observations.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not determined the specific amount of advance tax payable or the applicability of Section 208, and the assessee did not utilize the option to apply for exemption from advance tax payment under Section 249(4)(b) proviso. Given that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal procedurally without addressing the merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case is remanded back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to file an application for exemption from advance tax, decide it according to law, and then hear the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that since the Deity is the sole beneficiary and its share of income is determinate, Section 167B of the Act is not applicable. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal ruled that the Deity, being a juristic person with the status of an individual, should be taxed at individual slab rates. The appeal was therefore allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeals. It ruled that Section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to loans taken by the assessee from the Government of West Bengal, as the Government does not fall under the definition of a public financial institution. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting the assessee had provided all necessary documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeals. It ruled that Section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to loans taken by the assessee from the Government of West Bengal, as the Government does not fall under the definition of a public financial institution. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting the assessee had provided all necessary documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeals. It ruled that Section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to loans taken by the assessee from the Government of West Bengal, as the Government does not fall under the definition of a public financial institution. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting the assessee had provided all necessary documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeals. It ruled that Section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to loans taken by the assessee from the Government of West Bengal, as the Government does not fall under the definition of a public financial institution. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting the assessee had provided all necessary documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence of the loan creditors' identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions. The repayment of the loan and deduction of TDS were also considered significant.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without going into the merits. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the stamp duty value must be adopted for computing capital gains as it was higher than the actual sale consideration, dismissing that ground. However, the deduction under Section 54EC was allowed for statistical purposes upon verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence of the loan creditors' identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions. The repayment of the loan and deduction of TDS were also considered significant.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard regarding material gathered during inquiries under Section 142(2), as mandated by Section 142(3). This procedural lapse vitiated the assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not make proper compliance before the lower authorities. However, considering the discrepancy in sales figures and the credit received, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 28.07.2022, which was after four years from the end of the assessment year. The assessee's counsel argued that the notice was issued on borrowed satisfaction and was time-barred. The Tribunal, after perusing the order of the CIT(A) and considering the relevant dates and judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India v/s Ashish Agarwal and Union of India v/s Rajeev Bansal, and the Delhi High Court's decision in the Aadhar group of cases, found that the notice issued under Section 148 on 28.07.2022 was indeed time-barred. The Tribunal reproduced a table from the Delhi High Court's decision illustrating the computation of the limitation period, which confirmed that the notice was beyond the permissible period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the impugned order were quashed. The Tribunal held that since the proceedings faltered at the inception due to the time-barred notice, no adjudication on the merits of the addition was required. The remaining grounds of appeal were rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order for furnishing inaccurate particulars was vague. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the issue afresh on merit, with a caution to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the AO's decision to tax income from group services as FTS and guarantee fees as income from other sources. It relied on previous decisions for similar assessment years.
The Tribunal held that both Form 9A and Form 10B were e-filed and e-verified by the assessee within the extended due date (15.03.2022). Therefore, there was no justification for disallowing the exemption claimed under Section 11. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the filing of these forms and delete the additions, as the assessee is entitled to exemption for the application of income for charitable purposes.
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and condoned it. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Addl/JCIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the evidence, consider the assessee's past history where exemption under Section 10(25) was granted in subsequent assessment years, and grant the exemption if conditions for a provident fund's income are met.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A), remanding the matter to the AO for fresh assessment to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Grounds related to condoning delay in filing the return were not adjudicated, as this power lies with the PCIT. Other grounds were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal observed that the Section 148 notice, though dated 31.03.2017, was communicated via email on 01.04.2017. As the Finance Act, 2021, making Section 148A procedures mandatory for notices issued on or after 01.04.2021, was applicable, the notice was deemed invalid for non-compliance with the amended provisions and was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing that cases should be decided on merit rather than technical grounds. It restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a fresh order on merit after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard, noting that the previous dismissal was not on merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to make proper representation before the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with notices. To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the appeal back for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to provide both the assessee and the AO an opportunity of being heard, including considering Rule 46A.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeals. It ruled that Section 43B(d) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to loans taken by the assessee from the Government of West Bengal, as the Government does not fall under the definition of a public financial institution. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, noting the assessee had provided all necessary documents.
The Tribunal, considering the affidavit explaining the non-compliance due to illness and the lack of objection from the Ld. DR, restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee to be heard and consider all documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of having submitted all necessary documents to the AO and CIT(Appeals) which were not considered. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to re-examine the documents and provide the assessee with another opportunity of being heard, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal after the Departmental Representative stated that there was no objection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It allowed the assessee's plea on transfer pricing adjustment for corporate guarantee fees, reducing the charged rate from 0.74% to 0.50%, and deleted the disallowance under Section 14A. The disallowance of employees' contributions to PF/ESI was upheld, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The issue of directors' remuneration was remanded to the AO for re-examination.
The ITAT set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide the assessee one more opportunity of being heard to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate promptly with the proceedings, failing which the CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders.
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for levying penalty under Section 270A on both limbs (inaccurate particulars or concealment) was vague. To ensure natural justice and provide a proper opportunity, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, without being influenced by the previous order.
The ITAT condoned the 354-day delay in filing the appeal before it. Recognizing the need for careful examination of factual aspects concerning the impugned addition and in the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the Addl./JCIT(A)'s order and remanded the entire issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that while the Addl./JCIT(A)'s action was technically correct as no sufficient reasons for delay were provided, quasi-judicial forums should aim to dispense justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Addl./JCIT(A) to consider grounds for condoning the delay if filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly utilized the provisions of Section 250(1)(1)(a) to remand the matter back to the AO. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s action did not prejudice the assessee's rights and provided an opportunity to prove the absence of the transaction and obtain recorded reasons for reopening.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Considering the submissions and the need for substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to examine the justification of the additions.