Loading ITAT cases…
246 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered the genuineness of loans/advances and the accounting of payments, and that no incriminating documents were found during surveys.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 69A of the Act was patently wrong and could not be sustained. The documents seized were not from the assessee's premises, did not bear the assessee's name or signature, and did not specify whether the amounts were loans or deposits. These were considered 'dumb documents' and did not fall within the purview of Section 69A, which applies to money, bullion, etc., where the assessee is the owner and fails to offer a satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal also noted that the presumption under Section 292C of the Act could not be taken against the assessee as the documents were not found from their possession. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s theory of addition on the peak balance to be unreasonable and unplausible. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition as sustained by the CIT(A). For the subsequent grounds concerning battery sales, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the receipts were unrecorded battery sales but modified the GP rate to 10%, dismissing the grounds as infructuous. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as they raised similar issues already decided.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's order was passed without considering the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a mere 'yes I am satisfied' endorsement. Consequently, the reopening was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on borrowed satisfaction from the DDIT (Investigation) and not on the AO's independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,47,20,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished all necessary evidence regarding the share capital and premium, including addresses and PAN numbers of subscribers, allotment details, ITR acknowledgments, audited financial statements, and bank statements. While the directors did not appear personally for deposition under Section 131, all requested details were provided. The AO had not conducted independent verification of the furnished evidence and had not pointed out any defects. The Tribunal found support in the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., which held that if the assessee discharges its burden and the Revenue does not pursue further verification, the addition cannot be sustained. The Tribunal also relied on the Calcutta High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Jealous Commercial Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that the absence of directors' personal appearance should not lead to a finding of no explanation when sufficient documentary evidence is provided. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. On the first issue, it found that the AO relied on the report from the DDIT (Investigation) Wing without recording his own satisfaction as to how income had escaped assessment. The reasons recorded were merely a reproduction of the DDIT's report, constituting 'borrowed satisfaction', which is not permissible as per the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Sarthak Securities Co. (P.) Ltd. and Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd., and the Bombay High Court in Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not demonstrate a live link between tangible material and the formation of the belief that income had escaped assessment. On the second issue, the Tribunal found that the facts were similar to a previous decision where reopening was quashed for non-disposal of objections. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was quashed on both legal grounds. Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue became infructuous and were dismissed, while the appeals of the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that based on previous orders in similar cases concerning the assessee and other cooperative banks, the interest income received from banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied on the statement of Sri Girdhari Lal Goenka, which was later retracted and thus had no evidentiary value. The assessee had provided relevant documentary evidence, including audited accounts, bank statements, Income Tax Returns, loan confirmation statements, and source of funds, in response to summons under section 133(6) and notices under section 131 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that all loan transactions were conducted through banking channels and that all lender companies possessed sufficient net worth to advance the loans. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had submitted documents such as Lender's Letter, Loan Confirmation, Bank Statement of the Lender, Income Tax Acknowledgment of the Lender, Audited Financials of the Lender, and NBFC Certificate issued by the RBI. The Tribunal concluded that there was no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and deleted the addition of Rs. 6,28,00,000 made under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the sufficiency of documentary evidence provided by the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions, and the lack of corroborative evidence for the revenue's claims, particularly the retracted statement. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessee provides substantial documentary evidence establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of loan transactions, and the transactions are routed through banking channels, additions under section 68 based on unsubstantiated allegations or retracted statements are not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to the incorrect authority granting approval under Section 151. Furthermore, for AY 2016-17, the notice period was insufficient, rendering the proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to the incorrect authority granting approval under Section 151. Furthermore, for AY 2016-17, the notice period was insufficient, rendering the proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) should be restricted to investments that actually yielded exempt dividend income. The AO's computation based on total investments was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without deciding the merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans, thereby deleting the Rs. 28,00,000/- addition under Section 68. Furthermore, the tribunal affirmed the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance of Rs. 12,730/- as there was no dividend income and no separate expenses were incurred, making Section 14A inapplicable. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The tribunal held that the assessee had no exempt income from shares/dividends, only from NHAI Interest Bonds, for which it correctly made a self-disallowance based on 1% of the relevant investment. Citing legal precedents, it reaffirmed that disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(ii) applies only to investments yielding exempt income, not the entire investment portfolio. Thus, the AO's additional disallowance of Rs.10,50,029/- was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced sufficient documentary evidence for the unsecured loan of Rs.1,85,00,000/- from Kailash Auto Finance Limited, including corporate identification, loan confirmation, audited accounts, and ITR acknowledgments. The lender company was found to be a corporate entity with a valid CIN, regular income tax assessee status, and sufficient net worth, and all transactions were through banking channels. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because it was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from an investigation report, rather than an independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The AO failed to establish a live link between the tangible material and his own formation of a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, which is a pre-condition for valid reopening. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the CIT(A) were not infirm and upheld them, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The reasoning was that the assessee belonged to the Kanodia Group, and an identical issue had been decided by the Tribunal in ITA No. 1595/KOL/2025 & Ors. for AY 2015-16 & Ors., where the CIT(A)'s order was upheld. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that since both purchase and sale entries were arranged by the same operators and were meant to inflate turnover, and no profit was realized over and above what was shown in the books, no further addition was required. The CIT(A) had relied on a series of decisions to this effect. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal noted that the AO had made additions under a wrong appreciation of facts, which was correctly recognized by the appellate authority. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee had no transactions with M/s Reyansh Re-Roller Pvt Ltd. for AY 2016-17, and the transactions with M/s Tanishi Commotrade Private Limited were not related to AY 2016-17. Therefore, the addition was deleted. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is mandatory for the Assessing Officer who frames the assessment under Section 143(3). In this case, the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by ITO Ward 41(2), Kolkata, and subsequently, the case was transferred to ITO Ward 9(3), Kolkata. However, ITO Ward 9(3), Kolkata, framed the assessment without issuing a fresh notice under Section 143(2) to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the facts were substantially similar to the decision in ARS Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, where a coordinate bench had held that an assessment framed by the jurisdictional AO without issuing a Section 143(2) notice, when such notice was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, is invalid and a nullity. Therefore, respectfully following the precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment framed under Section 143(3) on the ground that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer and not by the officer who framed the assessment. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of additions by the Ld. CIT(A) was justified and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the assessee belonged to the Kanodia Group and that an identical issue had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous appeals. The Tribunal found that the entry operators admitted during search operations that the transactions were circular and intended to inflate the gross turnover. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had not generated any profit from these circular transactions over and above what was already shown in the books of account. Therefore, the Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s reasoning that since there was no profit realized from these transactions, no further addition was required. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal found that the Ld. AO had made the addition under a wrong appreciation of facts. The CIT(A) had correctly recognized that there were no transactions with M/s Reyansh ReRoller Pvt Ltd. for that AY and that transactions with M/s Tanishi Commotrade Private Limited were not related to AY 2016-17. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals of the Revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that since both purchases and sales were disclosed and managed by the same parties to inflate turnover without realizing additional profit, no further addition was warranted. The Tribunal followed its prior decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the appeals of the Revenue should be dismissed, upholding the orders of the Ld. CIT(A). For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal found merit in the contention of the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) that since both purchase and sale entries were arranged by the same operators and were meant to inflate turnover, and no profit was realized over and above what was shown in the books, no further addition was warranted. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had relied on a series of decisions in this regard and found no infirmity in the order. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal observed that the AO had made an addition based on a wrong appreciation of facts, specifically regarding transactions with M/s Reyansh Re Roller Pvt Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A) had correctly noted that the assessee had no transactions with the said party during AY 2016-17, and the amount in question pertained to AY 2015-16. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and upheld it. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals of the Revenue.
The tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not in accordance with law. The transactions were recorded in the assessee's books of account, making Section 69A of the Act inapplicable. The AO also wrongly focused on the non-recovery of investments due to NSEL termination rather than the source of investment.
The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed by NFAC without looking into the merits of the case, simply dismissing the appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeals of the Revenue should be dismissed. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal found that the assessee belonged to the Kanodia Group, and an identical issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in previous appeals (ITA No. 1595/KOL/2025 & Ors). In those cases, the Tribunal had upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The reasoning was that since both purchase and sale entries were arranged by the same operators and were intended to inflate turnover, and no profit was realized over and above what was shown in the books, the Ld. CIT(A)'s order was upheld. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to the issue decided for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal also addressed the specific addition for AY 2016-17 concerning M/s Reyansh Re Roller Pvt Ltd., finding that the AO had made the addition based on a wrong appreciation of facts. The Ld. CIT(A) had correctly recognized that the assessee had no transactions with M/s Reyansh Re Roller Pvt Ltd. during AY 2016-17, and the amounts from M/s Tanishi Commotrade Private Limited were accounted for in the post-search assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in all these appeals, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to provide supporting documentary evidence during the assessment proceedings. In the interest of natural justice and upon the AR's request, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to submit all relevant documents and allowing the AO to pass a de novo order after affording a proper hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid. This was because the reopening occurred beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and there was no allegation of the assessee failing to fully and truly disclose material facts. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment based on borrowed satisfaction, making the first proviso to Section 147 applicable.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act, dated August 22, 2019, was indeed defective as it did not contain the necessary information as per the CBDT's Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated June 23, 2017. The Tribunal noted that the notice was issued on August 22, 2019, but the assessment order was passed on December 15, 2020. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s. T.S.N. Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 149 (Cal) and other High Courts, which held that a notice under Section 143(2) must be issued within the prescribed time limit and must contain specific details. Since the notice was found to be defective and issued beyond the stipulated time frame for issuing such notices, the assessment framed under Section 143(3) was held to be void ab initio. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the addition itself, as the assessment was quashed on procedural grounds.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid. This was because the reopening occurred beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and there was no allegation of the assessee failing to fully and truly disclose material facts. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment based on borrowed satisfaction, making the first proviso to Section 147 applicable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The addition made by the AO u/s 68 was deleted. For the car expenses, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(Appeals) that a portion of the cash deposit could be explained by withdrawals from previous years' salary, but found the assessee's claim for the entire amount to be unsubstantiated. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 26,68,000/- as undisclosed income.
The Tribunal held that filing of the audit report in Form 10B is a procedural requirement and not a substantive one. Therefore, a delay in filing, especially due to technical issues, should not lead to the denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to point out specific defects in the books of account. The expenditure was supported by work orders, ledger accounts, bills, and audit reports. The excess payments were explained by GST inclusion, and the decision to outsource was a commercial one. Rejection of books under Section 145(3) was unjustified, and the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹17,84,983/- as profit on assumed sale and ₹1,17,17,159/- on account of undisclosed investment was not justified. The Tribunal noted that a document (JIJPL/I) found during the search indicated jewellery was with the partner, Puja Baid. While the AO rejected this as the jewellery was not found with her and not disclosed in her statement, the Tribunal found this reasoning flawed. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the very same jewellery was accepted by the AO as part of the closing stock at the year-end. The Tribunal also noted that other shortages were explained by the assessee and accepted by the AO as sales recorded on subsequent dates. Since no evidence of sale outside the books was found, and the sales declared were accepted by GST/VAT, the addition of gross profit on assumed sale was unjustified. Consequently, the addition on account of undisclosed investment, which was linked to this assumed sale, was also deleted. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete both additions.
The Tribunal noted the AO's acknowledgment that property valuation was pending with the DVO. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the jurisdictional AO for re-adjudication after receiving the DVO's report and granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, being based on an invalid notice under Section 143(2), was also invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law. Consequently, the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the AO did not apply his independent mind and blindly extracted information from the investigation wing. There was no allegation or evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that the company M/s Dharavee Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. exists, as evidenced by company master data, balance sheets, and its involvement in transactions including TDS and service tax payments. The disallowance of commission paid to M/s Dharavee Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was not sustainable as the finding of the AO that it was a sham company and the payment was bogus did not stand to reason.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground of appeal, challenging the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, was a purely legal issue with all necessary facts available on record. Therefore, it was admitted for adjudication, citing decisions of the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. The Tribunal found that the assessee's letter dated 24.01.2022, requesting the original return to be treated as filed in response to the Section 148 notice, constituted sufficient compliance. It was obligatory and mandatory for the AO to issue a notice under Section 143(2) thereafter. The failure to do so renders the assessment framed under Section 147 read with Section 144/144B invalid and a nullity. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd., which held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) pursuant to a notice under Section 148 is fatal to the order of reassessment. Accordingly, the assessment framed by the AO was quashed as invalid and a nullity. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the generation of steam for captive consumption does not qualify for deduction under Section 80-IA(4) as it pertains to electrical power generation and distribution. Interest under Sections 234A and 234B were directed to be recomputed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee had adequately explained the source of cash deposits through audited books, which were not rejected by the AO. The cash availability was substantiated by realizations from opening debtors, current sales, and opening cash in hand. Consequently, the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were both dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the miscellaneous income derived from sharing inventory carrying costs is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA as it is business income. The Tribunal also allowed the amortization of leasehold land premium as an expenditure spread over the lease period.
The Tribunal noted that the documents were development agreements and power of attorneys, not outright property acquisitions. To allow for a deeper examination by the AO, the issues were restored to the AO's file for readjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For ITA Nos. 2287 & 2288/Kol/2025, the issues were restored to the file of the PCIT for readjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 per assessment year. For ITA Nos. 1531 & 1532/Kol/2025, the appeals were allowed, quashing the assessment orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For ITA Nos. 2287 & 2288/Kol/2025, the issues were restored to the file of the PCIT for readjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 per assessment year. For ITA Nos. 1531 & 1532/Kol/2025, the appeals were allowed, quashing the assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, which ruled that the withdrawal of approval to the donee institution with retrospective effect does not affect the assessee's right to claim deduction if the donation was genuine and all conditions were fulfilled at the time of payment. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the benefit of deduction.