Loading ITAT cases…
187 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the company was not in existence on the date of issuance of the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent order. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a certificate of registration for the conversion of Raghupati Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. to Raghupati Mercantiles LLP. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that framing an assessment against a non-existing entity constitutes a jurisdictional defect, rendering the assessment void ab initio. The participation in proceedings by an entity that has ceased to exist cannot operate as an estoppel against the law. Therefore, the notice and the order passed were quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal decided two issues: unsecured loans and construction expenses. The assessee did not press the issue of sundry creditors, and the PCIT's order on that aspect was confirmed. Regarding unsecured loans totaling Rs. 189.00 lakhs from five parties (Jajodia Finance Ltd., JNB Sidhu Finance Pvt Ltd, Main Land Finance Pvt. Ltd., Sri Salasar Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., and Topdeal Agencies Pvt. Ltd.), the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided source of fund, loan confirmations, bank statements, audited financials, and ITR acknowledgments. The AO had also issued and received compliance to notices under Section 133(6), and after examining the details and parties, found the loans to be genuine and largely repaid, leading to satisfaction. Therefore, the assessment on this issue was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Concerning construction expenses of Rs. 73,49,863/-, the Tribunal found that these were debited and transferred to WIP, reflected in the P&L account as change in inventory, with supporting P&L and ledger accounts submitted. The AO had made enquiries and examined purchases and WIP before passing the assessment order. Thus, this issue was also not prejudicial to revenue. Consequently, the revision order under Section 263 was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid, finding no tangible material to support the belief of escaped assessment, and noting a change of opinion by the AO. It concluded there was no live link or close nexus between the material available to the AO and the belief that income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reassessment passed u/s 147 of the Act was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions and the assessee's own case. It was held that the assessee was a developer and not merely a works contractor, thus eligible for the deduction under Section 80-IA.
The Tribunal held that the payment received by the assessee from Muthoot was not in the nature of 'Royalty' as there was no technology transfer or use of proprietary technology. The income derived was from foreign exchange fluctuation, not from services rendered or technology provided.
The Tribunal held that the rental income was correctly disclosed as business income based on the company's MOA and the nature of its activities, citing Supreme Court judgments. It also found that the unsecured loan was adequately substantiated with documentary evidence and complied with notices, satisfying the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act was invalid as it did not follow the prescribed format according to CBDT instructions, making the assessment order void ab initio. Additionally, the notice was issued by an officer without pecuniary jurisdiction.
The Tribunal, observing the assessee's lack of representation at previous stages and their claim of having sufficient evidence, set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the AO. The matter was remitted to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee another opportunity to be heard and present all relevant evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal. Despite the assessee's failure to avail opportunities of being heard before the AO and CIT(A), the ITAT set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the AO. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a de novo reassessment, subject to the assessee paying a cost of ₹5,000/- to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within sixty days, failing which the CIT(A)'s order would stand confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10BB is a procedural requirement and not mandatory, citing a Calcutta High Court decision. Since the form was available before the AO at the time of processing, the denial of exemption was incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's return for AY 2010-2011 was filed on October 15, 2010, and the case was not selected for scrutiny, meaning it was an unabated assessment at the time of the search on February 16, 2016. The Tribunal found that the AO did not specifically identify any page or document as incriminating in the remand report. The CIT(Appeals) had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT, Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. ([2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)), which held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration other material in respect of completed/unabated assessments. The Tribunal agreed that no incriminating documents relevant to the assessment year were found during the search, and the additions were made based on statements. Therefore, following the Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. judgment, the disallowances/additions were held unsustainable and deleted.
The Tribunal found no justification for the addition of ₹1,31,465/-, noting that this amount represented approximately one and a half month's rent from properties generating a total rental income of ₹10,32,000/-. It held that it is not unusual to keep rent in cash and deposit it during demonetization. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
The Tribunal condoned a delay of 277 days in filing the appeal. It held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147/148 was invalid as it was done beyond the six-year period stipulated for cases where the escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, thus violating Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the ensuing reassessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to provide plausible reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the condonation petition was rejected, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed on account of the delay.
The tribunal deleted all additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had adequately explained the interest income, provided proofs for deductions, and had deposited cash from available cash in hand while operating under the presumptive taxation scheme (Section 44AD). The penalties imposed under Sections 271A and 271(1)(c) were also quashed, as the show-cause notices were issued mechanically without specifying the exact limb of default, rendering them invalid.
The tribunal deleted all additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had adequately explained the interest income, provided proofs for deductions, and had deposited cash from available cash in hand while operating under the presumptive taxation scheme (Section 44AD). The penalties imposed under Sections 271A and 271(1)(c) were also quashed, as the show-cause notices were issued mechanically without specifying the exact limb of default, rendering them invalid.
The tribunal deleted all additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had adequately explained the interest income, provided proofs for deductions, and had deposited cash from available cash in hand while operating under the presumptive taxation scheme (Section 44AD). The penalties imposed under Sections 271A and 271(1)(c) were also quashed, as the show-cause notices were issued mechanically without specifying the exact limb of default, rendering them invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the 320-day delay, finding the assessee's explanation plausible and reasonable. It further remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing and decide the matter on merits, as the previous order was ex-parte.
The tribunal deleted all additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had adequately explained the interest income, provided proofs for deductions, and had deposited cash from available cash in hand while operating under the presumptive taxation scheme (Section 44AD). The penalties imposed under Sections 271A and 271(1)(c) were also quashed, as the show-cause notices were issued mechanically without specifying the exact limb of default, rendering them invalid.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 277 days in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. Recognizing the interest of justice and the assessee's inability to substantiate its claim with documents before the lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case, with a directive to cooperate in the re-adjudication.
The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of ₹25,00,000/-, holding that the AO failed to make a case for the addition and relied solely on investigation findings without establishing linkage. The Tribunal, considering the Revenue's grounds of appeal regarding the onus of proof under Section 68, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing both parties an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh readjudication. It directed the AO to conduct a fresh independent enquiry into the share application transaction, ensuring sufficient opportunities for the assessee to present evidence and produce all concerned persons for verification.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it found that the revenue's grounds of appeal challenged the deletion of addition on merits but failed to challenge the Ld. CIT(A)'s specific finding that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to 'borrowed satisfaction' and lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not sustainable on this unchallenged ground.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) provided detailed reasons for not condoning the delay and the assessee failed to furnish any reasons for the delay before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee could not substantiate its claim before the CIT(A) in appellate proceedings. In the interest of justice, it restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard and present all necessary evidence, conditional on the assessee's cooperation.
The Tribunal held that the benefit of the New Tax Regime could not be denied as Form 10IE was filed much before the processing of the intimation u/s 143(1) and was available with the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that this issue is squarely covered by a similar decision of the Cochin Bench.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the source of funds. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and examined the bank accounts and ledger accounts of the assessee. It noted that while the AO had done commendable work in tracing the transactions, he had not taken them to their logical conclusion. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been able to show market trades and that the transactions, particularly involving JMD Telefilms Industries Limited and Nouveau Multimedia Limited, appeared suspicious, with inconsistencies in the presented charts and the introduction of new information at the hearing. The Tribunal invoked its powers under Section 254(1) of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to intimate the Enforcement Directorate and the Economic Offences Wing of the CBI for a thorough examination of the transactions, including financial dealings, involved parties, and audit procedures, to take the matter to its logical conclusion. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's order and the CIT(A)'s confirmation were liable to be upheld in the absence of the revenue being able to provide further details on the money laundering aspect. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the appeal on its merits and failing to pass a reasoned order, which is a statutory duty under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that a CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was decided by the lower authorities based on a misunderstanding of the assessee's business (ready-made garments instead of FMCG products) and that evidence filed by the assessee was not given due cognizance. The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was ex parte and that there was no proper compliance before the AO and CIT(A). In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO and remit the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and make further submissions. All grounds taken by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the IBC override the Income Tax Act, and once a resolution plan is sanctioned, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals become infructuous.
The Tribunal, considering the affidavit and the absence of objection from the DR, decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with sufficient opportunity to be heard and to produce relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of the IBC override the Income Tax Act, and once a resolution plan is sanctioned, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals become infructuous.
The tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim. The issues were restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to a low tax effect of ₹59,74,742/-, which falls below the ₹60,00,000/- monetary limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall if it is later found that the tax effect exceeds the limit or the case falls under specified exceptions.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal, to which the learned Senior DR did not object. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application stating that subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the CIT(E) had condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, and the Assessing Officer had passed a rectification order under section 154 of the Act deleting the earlier addition and demand. In view of these developments, the grievance of the assessee no longer survived, and the appeal had become infructuous. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific issue was left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 122 days in filing both appeals. It noted the CIT(E)'s rejection of applications based on non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the CIT(E) for fresh readjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard and submit relevant documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO failed to establish how the assessee routed its own unaccounted money through the alleged paper entities. All transactions were through banking channels, and the AO did not bring anything on record to prove the accommodation entries or the assessee as a beneficiary of illicit transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 122 days in filing both appeals. It noted the CIT(E)'s rejection of applications based on non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the CIT(E) for fresh readjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard and submit relevant documents.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court precedents concerning condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, found the assessee's explanation for the delay plausible and satisfactory. It condoned the substantial delay and remitted both appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the prayer of the assessee, which was not objected to by the Sr. DR, and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the Section 148 notice was indeed issued on 01.04.2021. Citing precedents from the Calcutta High Court and coordinate benches, the Tribunal held that a notice issued on or after 01.04.2021 without adhering to the mandatory provisions of Section 148A is void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 518 days in filing the appeal, finding it neither intentional nor willful. It restored the issues to the file of the Id.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to file revised grounds of appeal and relevant documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court precedents concerning condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, found the assessee's explanation for the delay plausible and satisfactory. It condoned the substantial delay and remitted both appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the 395-day delay, accepting the appeal for hearing. Recognizing the assessee's difficulty in furnishing documents to the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to produce all relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued to a deceased person and no fresh notice was served on the legal heir, the notice and subsequent assessment proceedings are null and void. The Tribunal relied on Section 159 of the Act and precedents, allowing the appeal and quashing the assessment.