Loading ITAT cases…
187 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1016 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal also set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeals afresh on merit, cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices, but the assessee failed to respond. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to ensure principles of natural justice and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with respect to interest earned on deposits. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd. vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, which distinguished the facts of the Totgars case. The High Court held that income derived from investments made by a cooperative society from its own monies, which originated from activities listed in Section 80P(2)(a), should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal also relied on a coordinate bench decision in Kakateeya Mutually Aided Thrift and Credit Co-op Society and Lankapalli PACS Ltd. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A)-NFAC, which had deleted the addition made by the AO. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1016 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal also set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeals afresh on merit, cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had no exempt income during the year, the disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A was not sustainable. The Tribunal relied on various judicial pronouncements, including decisions from the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without adjudicating it on merits or passing a reasoned order, which is a duty cast upon the CIT(A) under Section 250(6) of the Act. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal clarified that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the AO, remanding the matter back to the AO for a de novo reassessment, with conditions including payment of ₹1,00,000/- cost and production of directors for cross-examination.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), noting that the denial was based solely on a wrong section code. The matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT (Exemption) to provide the assessee an opportunity to correct the section code, be heard, and allow for the merits of the application and genuineness of charitable activities to be examined afresh.
The Tribunal held that since there was no petition or affidavit seeking condonation of delay, the appeal was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT (Exemption), noting that the denial was based solely on a wrong section code. The matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT (Exemption) to provide the assessee an opportunity to correct the section code, be heard, and allow for the merits of the application and genuineness of charitable activities to be examined afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons for the delay to be bona fide. The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and directed the PCIT to grant the assessee another opportunity to be heard, allowing the assessee to raise all issues before the PCIT.
The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT (Exemption)'s order, finding that the rejection was due to the absence of a comprehensive reply. The matter was remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) to provide another opportunity to the assessee to justify its activities and claim for approval, and then decide the application afresh.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that once a notice under Section 143(2) for scrutiny assessment has been issued, no intimation under Section 143(1) can be validly issued thereafter. Thus, the intimation under Section 143(1) issued in this case, being subsequent to the Section 143(2) notice, was deemed bad in law and quashed.
The ITAT observed that the assessee was effectively denied the opportunity to submit evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and the assessee is required to furnish all relevant documents and cooperate fully.
The ITAT observed that the assessee was effectively denied the opportunity to submit evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and the assessee is required to furnish all relevant documents and cooperate fully.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search, making the addition in unabated assessment proceedings unsustainable as per the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently proven the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors through extensive documentary evidence, and the AO had not disputed these documents.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search, making the addition in unabated assessment proceedings unsustainable as per the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently proven the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors through extensive documentary evidence, and the AO had not disputed these documents.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search, making the addition in unabated assessment proceedings unsustainable as per the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently proven the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors through extensive documentary evidence, and the AO had not disputed these documents.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search, making the addition in unabated assessment proceedings unsustainable as per the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently proven the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors through extensive documentary evidence, and the AO had not disputed these documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeals and, after reviewing all submitted documents, found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. It held that the assessee had sufficiently established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loans, which were also repaid. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed on merits, and the assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search relating to the assessee, thus additions under Section 153C were not permissible for unabated assessments. Regarding the Section 68 addition, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loans, which were also part of a subsequent disclosure, preventing double taxation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeals and, after reviewing all submitted documents, found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. It held that the assessee had sufficiently established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loans, which were also repaid. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed on merits, and the assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO, setting aside the CIT(A)'s orders. The AO is directed to verify the actual payment dates for PF and ESI contributions against the due dates, based on the challans and evidence provided by the assessee. If payments are found to be on or before the due date, the additions shall be deleted; otherwise, they will be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards the sale of investments under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit in the assessment order passed under Section 153A could not be sustained if the assessment years under consideration were unabated/concluded as on the date of search. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A), after calling for a remand report, found that the impugned sum was on account of the sale of investment and not an unsecured loan. The AO's remand report confirmed the receipt of the sum on account of sale proceeds of investment. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the addition made without any incriminating material, when the assessment year was unabated, was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and a coordinate bench decision in Pawanputra Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the additions were deleted. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to make an addition at the rate of 5% of the total sales consideration towards net profit, finding it to be without any substantive basis. The appeals for all three assessment years were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided comprehensive documentary evidence regarding the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions, and their creditworthiness. It held that mere non-appearance of directors or low income of group companies, especially when the transactions were through banking channels and the share capital was received in prior years, cannot be the sole basis to disbelieve genuine transactions. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that for AYs 2014-2015 to 2016-2017, the assessee had discharged its onus by providing the identity of loan creditors, relevant ledgers, bank statements, and confirmation letters. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) found that the loan creditors also declared their source of investment and that the AO had not brought any corroborative evidence to prove the loans as bogus or as the assessee's own money routed through the creditors. The Tribunal further observed that the AO had only treated a part of the total loans received from these creditors as bogus, implying the remaining portion was not doubted. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 68 and upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the Revenue's grounds. For AY 2019-2020, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had categorically held that rental expenditure was regrouped from selling and distribution expenses to rental expenses, and there was no actual increase in rent compared to earlier years. Regarding unproved purchases, the CIT(A) held that mere non-response to Section 133(6) notices by the parties did not make the purchases bogus, especially when supported by necessary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to produce any evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings on these issues. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s reasons for deleting the additions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the impugned order. The ITAT noted that the assessee had provided comprehensive documentary evidence, including ledgers, invoices, bills of lading, and customs clearance documents, to substantiate that the purchases identified by 'RAM' bills were legitimate import transactions from Ningbo Engineering Import & Export Co. Ltd., and not bogus indigenous purchases as presumed by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit in the assessment order passed under Section 153A of the Act, without any incriminating material found as a result of the search, cannot be sustained when the assessment year under consideration is unabated/concluded as on the date of the search. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which held that in the case of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that completed assessments can be re-opened by the AO under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfillment of conditions, and advised the AO to examine this possibility. No observations were made on the merits of the issue, as relief was granted on the procedural ground of lack of incriminating material.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be genuine and condoned it. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte on a technical issue, not on merits.
The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO, setting aside the CIT(A)'s orders. The AO is directed to verify the actual payment dates for PF and ESI contributions against the due dates, based on the challans and evidence provided by the assessee. If payments are found to be on or before the due date, the additions shall be deleted; otherwise, they will be sustained.
The Tribunal held that for AYs 2014-2015 to 2016-2017, the assessee had discharged its onus by providing the identity of loan creditors, relevant ledgers, bank statements, and confirmation letters. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) found that the loan creditors also declared their source of investment and that the AO had not brought any corroborative evidence to prove the loans as bogus or as the assessee's own money routed through the creditors. The Tribunal further observed that the AO had only treated a part of the total loans received from these creditors as bogus, implying the remaining portion was not doubted. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 68 and upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the Revenue's grounds. For AY 2019-2020, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had categorically held that rental expenditure was regrouped from selling and distribution expenses to rental expenses, and there was no actual increase in rent compared to earlier years. Regarding unproved purchases, the CIT(A) held that mere non-response to Section 133(6) notices by the parties did not make the purchases bogus, especially when supported by necessary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to produce any evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings on these issues. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s reasons for deleting the additions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue in the assessee's wife's case had been set aside to the AO with a direction to refer the property valuation to the DVO. Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the present appeal back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue afresh, along with the wife's case, and to refer the valuation of the property to the DVO if necessary.
The Tribunal held that for AYs 2014-2015 to 2016-2017, the assessee had discharged its onus by providing the identity of loan creditors, relevant ledgers, bank statements, and confirmation letters. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) found that the loan creditors also declared their source of investment and that the AO had not brought any corroborative evidence to prove the loans as bogus or as the assessee's own money routed through the creditors. The Tribunal further observed that the AO had only treated a part of the total loans received from these creditors as bogus, implying the remaining portion was not doubted. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 68 and upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, dismissing the Revenue's grounds. For AY 2019-2020, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had categorically held that rental expenditure was regrouped from selling and distribution expenses to rental expenses, and there was no actual increase in rent compared to earlier years. Regarding unproved purchases, the CIT(A) held that mere non-response to Section 133(6) notices by the parties did not make the purchases bogus, especially when supported by necessary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to produce any evidence to counter the CIT(A)'s findings on these issues. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s reasons for deleting the additions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) provided ample opportunities, dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the basic facts on record was incorrect, as an appellate authority should decide on merits even in cases of non-prosecution. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, directing to provide a sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Savita Kapila vs. ACIT, held that reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person are bad in law, null, and void. It clarified that legal representatives are not statutorily obligated to inform the Income Tax Department about the assessee's death.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on July 19, 2022, was bad in law and liable to be quashed. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified the time limits for issuing reassessment notices.
The tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Savita Kapila vs. ACIT, held that reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person are bad in law, null, and void. It clarified that legal representatives are not statutorily obligated to inform the Income Tax Department about the assessee's death.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that a legal issue can be raised for the first time before any appellate authority if all facts are on record and no further investigation is needed. The Tribunal found that the notice issued under Section 143(2) dated 13.09.2018 was indeed issued in violation of CBDT Instruction No. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017, as it only specified 'computer aided scrutiny selection' without mentioning limited, complete, or compulsory manual scrutiny. Following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd., and a co-ordinate bench decision in Tapas Kumar Das vs. ITO, the Tribunal held that the violation of CBDT instructions renders the notice invalid and all consequential proceedings void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment framed was quashed. The appeal was allowed on this legal ground, and other grounds on merit were left undecided.
The tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Savita Kapila vs. ACIT, held that reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person are bad in law, null, and void. It clarified that legal representatives are not statutorily obligated to inform the Income Tax Department about the assessee's death.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentation proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribers. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that there was no infirmity in the order and that the assessee had fulfilled the requirements of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the order not being communicated to the assessee. It was held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without granting a sufficient opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that no incriminating material relating to the share subscription was found during the search proceedings, and the assessment was unabated. Following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that in cases of unabated/completed assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal acknowledged that completed/unabated assessments can be reopened under Sections 147/148, subject to fulfilling the conditions therein. The Tribunal also referred to the ITAT, Guwahati Bench's decision in Bhagya Kalita vs. ACIT, which suggested considering appropriate action under Section 147/148 read with Section 150 of the Act. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The issue of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was not expressly decided by the Tribunal, but the deletion of the addition implies that the penalty, if initiated on that addition, would also not be sustainable.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentation proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribers. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that there was no infirmity in the order and that the assessee had fulfilled the requirements of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO, remitting the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that in cases of unabated/completed assessments, additions cannot be made under Section 153A without any incriminating material found during the search. The AO may examine the possibility of invoking Section 147/148 read with Section 150.
The tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Savita Kapila vs. ACIT, held that reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person are bad in law, null, and void. It clarified that legal representatives are not statutorily obligated to inform the Income Tax Department about the assessee's death.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents were 'dumb documents' without corroborative evidence. The assessee's retracted statement could not be the sole basis for addition, and no independent material supported the AO's conclusions.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and that the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the entire issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh examination, with a direction to provide the assessee a proper opportunity.
The ITAT found that the assessee maintained audited books of account and the disputed amount was already included in the sales turnover and offered to tax. The Tribunal held that Section 68 cannot be invoked when receipts are accounted for as sales, thus quashing the CIT(A)'s order and directing the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal found that the assessee, an interior decorator, had rendered services for the amount and included it in their total income offered to tax. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was based on a 'change of opinion' by the Assessing Officer, which is not permissible. The CIT(A) had correctly set aside the additions on this ground.