Loading ITAT cases…
239 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal, noting that the merits were not addressed, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the case back to the AO. This was done to provide the assessee one last opportunity to present their case, ensuring principles of natural justice, with a caution for cooperation.
The Tribunal, emphasizing the principle of natural justice, set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals). It remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to grant the assessee a final opportunity to be heard, while also cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the 225-day delay in filing the appeal, finding no deliberate lapse or negligence. It remitted the matter back to the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide the assessee another opportunity of hearing, noting that the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance without discussing merits.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a reasoned order, noting that the assessee followed the project completion contract method, which allows revenue and expense recognition to be deferred until project completion. The CIT(A) observed that the interest expenses were not actually claimed as revenue expenses but were added to the capital work-in-progress. Consequently, the CIT(A) rightly concluded that the AO should have rejected the books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act before disallowing the interest expenses, which the AO failed to do. Since the AO's action was not sustainable without rejecting the books of account, the addition made by the AO was deleted. The Tribunal agreed with this conclusion and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal observed that the discrepancy in the Form 3CD was due to a mistake in reporting. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue and delete the addition if the reporting was indeed erroneous.
The tribunal held that the AO had conducted due enquiry into the deduction for bad debts and had taken a plausible view of law, treating the provision as an actual write-off. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the tribunal reiterated that revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 requires both conditions (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) to be met and cannot be invoked when two views are possible or where an enquiry was already conducted. Thus, the PCIT's revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while corporate expenses reimbursed are allowable in principle, their quantum needs to be examined for direct nexus with the assessee's business activities. The premium on redemption of bonds was rightly treated as revenue expense, following Supreme Court precedent.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, noting that the assessee followed the project completion contract method, and the interest expenses were part of capital work-in-progress, not actually claimed in P&L. Crucially, the CIT(A) found that the AO failed to reject the books of account under Section 145(3) before making the disallowance. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recognized that the case was fact-dependent and the assessee had new evidence. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present the new evidence and empowering the CIT(A) to obtain a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the basis for reopening had already been addressed in the original assessment and subsequently validated by sales tax authorities. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided details of the depositors and that the amounts received were repayments of loans from members. Following precedent, the Tribunal found no justification for treating these receipts as unexplained income.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) nor the assessee had presented the correct facts to apply the law and compute capital gains correctly. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause or proper explanation for the 171-day delay. It observed that the assessee was a habitual defaulter and not diligent in its tax affairs. Consequently, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) nor the assessee had presented the correct facts to apply the law and compute capital gains correctly. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the loan transaction was genuine as it was recorded in the books of account, repaid through banking channel, and supported by documentary evidence. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was not warranted.
The Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the search operation was conducted on 20.11.2018, and subsequent dates, in the same group of cases. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the NFAC, in its orders for AY 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18, concerning the same assessee and arising from the same search, had clearly held that no incriminating material was found or seized during the search proceedings. Given this precedent in the assessee's own cases for different AYs, the Tribunal found substance in the assessee's argument that the present appeal also deserved to be allowed on the ground that there was no incriminating material found in the course of the search. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not inclined to restore the appeal for adjudication as it would only cause harassment to the assessee, considering the prior adjudication by the NFAC. The findings in the lead case, IT(SS)A No.94/Kol/2025, were applied mutatis mutandis to IT(SS)A No.95/Kol/2025.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the bogus loss, finding no corroborative evidence from the AO and confirming the genuineness of transactions. It also affirmed the deletion of the Section 50C addition, agreeing that the valuation difference was within the 5% safe harbor limit and the proviso is retrospective. Furthermore, the deletion of the 26AS discrepancy was upheld, clarifying it was due to service tax inclusion in 26AS.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax had neither signed nor recorded any reasons for granting approval as required under Section 151 of the Act. Furthermore, the additions made by the AO were not part of the original reasons recorded for reopening.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act was not sustainable. The assessee had discharged its onus by filing all the requisite evidences to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors and the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not pointed out any deficiency or defect in the evidences filed by the assessee. The mere non-compliance with notices under Section 133(6) or summons under Section 131 by some creditors cannot be the sole ground for making an addition under Section 68, especially when the assessee has provided substantial evidence. The Tribunal also observed that the AO had made a double addition on account of interest, indicating a lack of application of mind. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (SC) and Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Cal), which held that if the assessee provides sufficient evidence, the non-appearance of creditors pursuant to summons is of little significance. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no basis for estimating profit at 5% and set aside that part of the order. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions which treated the sale of investments as not being unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no basis for estimating profit at 5% and set aside that part of the order. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions which treated the sale of investments as not being unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 on account of the sale of investments was not sustainable, respectfully following the ratio laid down in the case of PCIT vs. Tulsyan and Sons Private Limited, where the Hon'ble High Court affirmed the deletion of such additions. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not provided any basis for directing an addition of 5% of the total sales consideration as estimated profit, deeming it based on presumptions and surmises. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s direction to make an addition of 5% of the sales consideration. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed. The decision for AY 2016-17 was applied mutatis mutandis to AYs 2017-18 to 2021-22.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no basis for estimating profit at 5% and set aside that part of the order. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions which treated the sale of investments as not being unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no basis for estimating profit at 5% and set aside that part of the order. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions which treated the sale of investments as not being unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no basis for estimating profit at 5% and set aside that part of the order. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions which treated the sale of investments as not being unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no basis for estimating profit at 5% and set aside that part of the order. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions which treated the sale of investments as not being unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribers by submitting all relevant documents. Consequently, the burden shifted to the AO to make independent inquiries, which he failed to do. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no basis for estimating profit at 5% and set aside that part of the order. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions which treated the sale of investments as not being unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no basis for estimating profit at 5% and set aside that part of the order. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions which treated the sale of investments as not being unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the direction by the CIT(A) to make an addition of 5% of the total sales consideration towards estimated profit was without any substantive basis. The CIT(A) had acted on presumptions and surmises. The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Tulsyan and Sons Private Limited and a Co-ordinate Bench decision, set aside the CIT(A)'s direction to add 5% of the sales consideration. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal noted that the facts of the case were substantially similar to the cited precedents where sale of investments was accepted. The Tribunal also noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147/143(3) and the AO treated the sale of investments as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, relying on the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs NRA Iron and steel Pvt Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided by the assessee in the affidavit. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without the assessee receiving hearing notices, which led to the delay. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for all three assessment years. The matters were remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided by the assessee in the affidavit. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without the assessee receiving hearing notices, which led to the delay. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for all three assessment years. The matters were remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found the AO's approach to be capricious and whimsical, accepting STCG as genuine while rejecting LTCG as bogus from the same company's shares. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order upholding the AO's decision.
The ITAT held that the entire transaction was with an entity of the State Govt. of West Bengal, and there was no reason to infer suppression of purchase price. The Tribunal also reasoned that the State Govt. would not sell property below the circle rate.
The Tribunal determined that the actual position regarding the discrepancy between Form 26AS and the Profit & Loss Account needed further clarification. Consequently, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, with instructions to grant the assessee a fair hearing and opportunity to submit supporting documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It was held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including MCA records, PAN, financial statements, bank statements, and loan confirmations, to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors and share applicants. Crucially, the share application money was received in the immediately preceding year, not the assessment year under consideration, and the loans were duly repaid in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that when an Assessing Officer accepts the returned income under Section 143(3) without making any additions or disallowances, there is no basis for any demand under Section 156. A demand notice cannot exist independently or contrary to the assessment order. It is settled law that a demand notice must follow the assessment order, and if the assessment creates no tax liability, issuing a demand notice is bad in law. Since the assessment order did not create any tax demand, but a Section 156 notice was issued raising a demand without supporting computation in the assessment order, it is not sustainable. However, the manner of computation of the demand requires factual verification. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for limited verification. The impugned demand raised under Section 156 without basis is not sustainable. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a retracted statement cannot be the sole basis for additions. Citing higher court judgments, it was held that such statements lack evidentiary value without corroborative evidence or further investigation.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided evidence of loan creditors and the loans were repaid in subsequent years, Section 68 could not be invoked. Consequently, the disallowance of interest and penalties were also set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided by the assessee in the affidavit. The Tribunal acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without the assessee receiving hearing notices, which led to the delay. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for all three assessment years. The matters were remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee during the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided evidence of loan creditors and the loans were repaid in subsequent years, Section 68 could not be invoked. Consequently, the disallowance of interest and penalties were also set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided evidence of loan creditors and the loans were repaid in subsequent years, Section 68 could not be invoked. Consequently, the disallowance of interest and penalties were also set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided evidence of loan creditors and the loans were repaid in subsequent years, Section 68 could not be invoked. Consequently, the disallowance of interest and penalties were also set aside.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided evidence of loan creditors and the loans were repaid in subsequent years, Section 68 could not be invoked. Consequently, the disallowance of interest and penalties were also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹62,60,212 as unexplained investment under Section 69 was uncalled for. The Tribunal observed that the payments for the two plots of land were made from the bank account of the assessee's father, Shri Roshan Lal Agarwal, and were duly reflected in his balance sheet. Copies of the bank account and the father's balance sheet were available before the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal found that both lower authorities failed to take correct cognizance of this evidence, which fully explained the investment. Therefore, the addition was deleted, and the appeal on this issue was allowed. Regarding the addition of ₹38,25,073 under Section 56(2)(viib), the Tribunal noted that the asset in question was agricultural land located outside 8 km of municipal limits. Following coordinate bench decisions in 'Mubark Gafur Korabu v. ITO' and 'Prem Chand Jain v. ACIT', the Tribunal held that agricultural land not qualifying as a capital asset falls outside the purview of Section 56(2)(viib). Thus, the addition was deleted, and the appeal on this issue was allowed. The legal issue concerning Section 153A assessment without invoking Section 153C was admitted but not adjudicated as the appeal was allowed on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no basis for estimating profit at 5% and set aside that part of the order. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions which treated the sale of investments as not being unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to the Assessing Officer's non-application of mind to the information and the mechanical approval granted by the PCIT. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the information leading to the reopening of assessment originated from a search and seizure operation on the 'Sagar Group', making the assessee an 'other person'. Therefore, the assessment should have been initiated under Section 153C, rendering the proceedings under Section 147 void ab-initio. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that justice should not be denied for technical reasons and restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no incriminating material related to the additions for A.Y. 2011-12. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the ITAT held that additions cannot be sustained in an unabated assessment year without incriminating material found during the search.