Loading ITAT cases…
246 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition for estimated profit was unsustainable because the assessee's books of account were not rejected under Section 145(3) of the Act. It was clarified that the ₹2.5 crore represented purchase consideration and not turnover, making the addition based on presumption and conjecture. Consequently, the addition of ₹25,00,000 sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted as being bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the Assessing Officer could not make an addition based solely on third-party information without rejecting the assessee's books of account, which showed duly recorded purchases, corresponding sales, claimed expenses, and disclosed profit. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order deleting the addition.
The tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was invalid because it was issued before the jurisdiction order under Section 127. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to the invalid notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 13,65,317/- as unexplained investment, holding that the assessee had disclosed the property in the balance sheet and the AO failed to prove the investment was made during the relevant year. The Tribunal also deleted additions related to business income, cash in hand, and capital, finding the AO's actions unjustified and quashed the assessment order for not issuing a show cause notice.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v), which allows disallowance of Chapter VI-A deductions (including Section 80P) during processing, came into effect from April 1, 2021. Therefore, for Assessment Year 2020-21, the Assessing Officer did not have the power to make such a prima facie adjustment under Section 143(1). Such disallowance could only be made during a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the property transaction was part of the assessee's business activity, thus Section 44AB could not be mechanically applied. Citing Section 273B, the Tribunal found the assessee's bona fide belief that the receipts were capital in nature constituted reasonable cause, rendering the penalty under Section 271B unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the nature and source of the share application money. The Tribunal also found that no disallowance under Section 14A was justified as the assessee did not earn any exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without considering the assessee's submissions. In the interest of natural justice, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The ITAT noted the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) and the assessee's submission of evidence during assessment, which the CIT(A) failed to consider. In the interest of natural justice, the ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for re-examination of evidence after providing a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory, even in reassessment proceedings under Section 147. Since no such notice was issued after the assessee filed its return in response to the Section 148 notice, the reassessment framed under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) is invalid and void ab initio, as this defect cannot be cured by Section 292BB.
The Tribunal acknowledged that crucial evidence regarding the JDA cancellation was not filed before the lower authorities. To ensure natural justice and a fair opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo reassessment, allowing the assessee to present new submissions.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 13,65,317/- as unexplained investment, holding that the assessee had disclosed the property in the balance sheet and the AO failed to prove the investment was made during the relevant year. The Tribunal also deleted additions related to business income, cash in hand, and capital, finding the AO's actions unjustified and quashed the assessment order for not issuing a show cause notice.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 13,65,317/- as unexplained investment, holding that the assessee had disclosed the property in the balance sheet and the AO failed to prove the investment was made during the relevant year. The Tribunal also deleted additions related to business income, cash in hand, and capital, finding the AO's actions unjustified and quashed the assessment order for not issuing a show cause notice.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding IGS and Marketing Support Services, following the rule of consistency and prior ITAT decisions. It also directed the AO to allow deductions under Section 80G for eligible donations made as part of CSR, stating that such disallowance does not extend to Chapter VI-A deductions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for all the issues raised by the PCIT, and the Assessing Officer had duly examined them. The Tribunal found no error or prejudice to the revenue in the Assessing Officer's order.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's human hair trading business with a turnover of Rs. 72,13,823 and recognized that transactions were primarily cash-based within Section 40A(3) limits. Considering these facts and a precedent, the Tribunal determined that a net profit rate of 1.15% should be applied. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-calculation based on this net profit rate.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted crucial documents, namely cancellation of development agreements and revocation of power of attorney, which were not produced before the lower authorities. Considering the relevance of these documents to the penalty imposition, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee and considering the new evidence.
The Tribunal found that the bank did not respond to the assessee's requests for information. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) to collect details from the bank.
The Tribunal held that the entire amount of ₹4,21,39,900/- constituted business income from the sale of flats, as admitted by the assessee and supported by impounded documents. It ruled that the amount of ₹1,35,40,535/-, which the assessee had offered for assessment as business income, could not be treated as cash credit under Section 68, especially since the tax rates under business income and Section 115BBE were identical, making the exercise tax-neutral.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations from lenders and compliance with notices, and that the AO had not properly investigated the matter or provided opportunities for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the purchases and that the AO had not brought any contrary evidence. For the unsecured loans, the assessee had also provided evidence, and the authorities below failed to point out any defects, thus the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence (ITRs, financial statements, bank statements) to the AO and CIT(A) demonstrating the identity, creditworthiness of subscribers, and genuineness of transactions. It held that these documents were not additional evidence but were already before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was served after 148 days from the due time, making it barred by limitation. This decision was based on a co-ordinate bench ruling in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10.
The Tribunal held that the reliance on the SEBI ex-parte interim order, which was later set aside, was misplaced. The addition made by the AO was unsustainable as the foundation was demolished.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the appellate order without adequate opportunity being granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on all grounds. Regarding the ₹1,50,00,000/- advance, it was held to be a trading loss incurred in the ordinary course of business, even if the corresponding revenue was not recognized. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Sumangal Overseas Ltd., stating that a trading loss has a wider connotation than a bad debt and can be deducted. The interest paid on customer refunds was also allowed as a business expense, as it arose from the failure to deliver flats as promised. The addition for interest on director loans was deleted, finding merit in the assessee's contention that current account transactions often involve higher interest rates and that similar interest had been allowed previously. The addition for stock difference was set aside, as the AO used incorrect area figures, and the Tribunal noted it was a revenue-neutral addition. Finally, the disallowances of service tax and professional tax were deleted, as these were shown as liabilities and not debited to the profit and loss account, thus falling outside the ambit of Section 43B.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all documentary evidence for the loan from Eiffel Agencies Pvt. Ltd. to both the AO and the CIT(A). The authorities did not identify any specific defects or discrepancies in these documents. Their reasoning for the addition was primarily based on the lender company's low operating profit, lack of fixed assets, or low expenses, and its alleged status as a 'Jamakarchi Company'. The Tribunal cited the case of CIT vs. Ms. Mayawati, which held that low income or lack of fixed assets of a creditor is not a sole criterion for disallowing a loan. Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Sreeleathers, which stated that if an assessee furnishes all evidence and the AO does not conduct further inquiry, no addition can be made. The Tribunal found the AO's order to be perverse. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition of ₹15,00,000. As the second issue regarding interest disallowance was consequential, it was also set aside, and the AO was directed to delete that addition as well. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had denied making any disclosure and had retracted the statement once its copy was provided. The CIT(A) had also noted that at all stages, the assessee was accepted as a finance broker. The Tribunal found that the alleged disclosure of ₹20.00 crores was not supported by any corroborative material from the seized papers, and the peak balance in the assessee's accounts did not justify such a figure. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular dated 10.03.2000, stating that additions should be based on seized material rather than confessions alone. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was indeed a finance broker, supported by evidence from seized documents and replies from parties who confirmed cash loan transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the addition could not be based solely on a retracted disclosure petition without supporting evidence, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to ₹15,42,994/- based on seized documents.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had denied making any disclosure and had retracted the statement once its copy was provided. The CIT(A) had also noted that at all stages, the assessee was accepted as a finance broker. The Tribunal found that the alleged disclosure of ₹20.00 crores was not supported by any corroborative material from the seized papers, and the peak balance in the assessee's accounts did not justify such a figure. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular dated 10.03.2000, stating that additions should be based on seized material rather than confessions alone. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was indeed a finance broker, supported by evidence from seized documents and replies from parties who confirmed cash loan transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the addition could not be based solely on a retracted disclosure petition without supporting evidence, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to ₹15,42,994/- based on seized documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without jurisdiction. It ruled that since Section 151A, which governs faceless assessments, was not notified on the date the assessment proceedings commenced and the order was passed, the NFAC lacked the legal authority to issue notices and complete the assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. The assessee had furnished all necessary evidences regarding subscribers and loan creditors, and the loans were repaid in subsequent years. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the transaction was a sale of investment and not an unsecured loan. Since the shares were purchased in earlier years and accepted by the department, their sale consideration could not be doubted under Section 68. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s direction to add 5% profit, finding no basis for it.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that additions cannot be made solely on a retracted disclosure statement without corroborative material. The assessee was established to be a finance broker, and only brokerage income should be added.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had denied making any disclosure and had retracted the statement once its copy was provided. The CIT(A) had also noted that at all stages, the assessee was accepted as a finance broker. The Tribunal found that the alleged disclosure of ₹20.00 crores was not supported by any corroborative material from the seized papers, and the peak balance in the assessee's accounts did not justify such a figure. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular dated 10.03.2000, stating that additions should be based on seized material rather than confessions alone. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was indeed a finance broker, supported by evidence from seized documents and replies from parties who confirmed cash loan transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the addition could not be based solely on a retracted disclosure petition without supporting evidence, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to ₹15,42,994/- based on seized documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted detailed explanations, audited accounts, and tax audit reports, demonstrating that TDS was deducted wherever applicable. The tax auditor's report showed tax deducted at source without adverse comments. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance could not be based on presumptions and that the assessee had furnished all required details. Thus, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the Ld. AO was directed to delete the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), dismissing the revenue's appeal. It was held that the assessee had successfully discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money received from the sister concern through banking channels, by providing extensive documentary evidence. The mere non-production of directors in response to summons under Section 131 was deemed insufficient to sustain the addition when all other requisite details were provided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) misconstrued facts regarding sundry creditors and set aside the addition, allowing the first issue. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found the assessee explained most of the difference between 26AS and ITR, and directed the AO to make a revised addition.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had denied making any disclosure and had retracted the statement once its copy was provided. The CIT(A) had also noted that at all stages, the assessee was accepted as a finance broker. The Tribunal found that the alleged disclosure of ₹20.00 crores was not supported by any corroborative material from the seized papers, and the peak balance in the assessee's accounts did not justify such a figure. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular dated 10.03.2000, stating that additions should be based on seized material rather than confessions alone. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was indeed a finance broker, supported by evidence from seized documents and replies from parties who confirmed cash loan transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the addition could not be based solely on a retracted disclosure petition without supporting evidence, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to ₹15,42,994/- based on seized documents.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had denied making any disclosure and had retracted the statement once its copy was provided. The CIT(A) had also noted that at all stages, the assessee was accepted as a finance broker. The Tribunal found that the alleged disclosure of ₹20.00 crores was not supported by any corroborative material from the seized papers, and the peak balance in the assessee's accounts did not justify such a figure. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular dated 10.03.2000, stating that additions should be based on seized material rather than confessions alone. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was indeed a finance broker, supported by evidence from seized documents and replies from parties who confirmed cash loan transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the addition could not be based solely on a retracted disclosure petition without supporting evidence, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to ₹15,42,994/- based on seized documents.
The Tribunal found that the notices were indeed sent to the tax consultant's contact details, rendering the assessee unaware. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that a penalty for non-compliance under Section 272A(1)(d) is not justified if the assessment was ultimately completed under Section 143(3) after subsequent compliances, implying the AO had condoned the initial default. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10B is directory and not mandatory, and a technical or procedural lapse in filing does not warrant denial of exemption. The Tribunal followed the Gujarat High Court's decision in Sarvodaya Charitable Trust.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had denied making any disclosure and had retracted the statement once its copy was provided. The CIT(A) had also noted that at all stages, the assessee was accepted as a finance broker. The Tribunal found that the alleged disclosure of ₹20.00 crores was not supported by any corroborative material from the seized papers, and the peak balance in the assessee's accounts did not justify such a figure. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular dated 10.03.2000, stating that additions should be based on seized material rather than confessions alone. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was indeed a finance broker, supported by evidence from seized documents and replies from parties who confirmed cash loan transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the addition could not be based solely on a retracted disclosure petition without supporting evidence, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to ₹15,42,994/- based on seized documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It acknowledged the CBDT's directions allowing Chief Commissioners/Directors General to decide applications for condonation of delay in furnishing returns claiming Section 80P deduction, especially when delays are due to statutory audit requirements.
The Tribunal observed that no fresh addition was made under Section 147 for the present assessee, and the demand appeared to arise from adopting the income of the merged entity. Due to lack of full examination by lower authorities, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh assessment to determine the validity of the demand.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illiteracy and reliance on a consultant as sufficient cause. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.