Loading ITAT cases…
216 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal noted that since the CIT(A) had previously passed an order u/s 263 directing fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer, the penalty proceedings initiated pursuant to a subsequent order by the Assessing Officer had become infructuous. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The additions under Section 14A were deleted as the assessee had not earned any exempt income, and the addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was deleted based on a prior ITAT ruling in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance computed as per Rule 8D cannot be applied under Section 115JB, as Section 14A is restricted to normal computation of income. The matter regarding computation under Rule 8D(iii) was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. Certain grounds of the assessee were dismissed, while others were partly allowed.
The Tribunal found that the additions were wrongly made by the AO based on incorrect facts. The assessee had already suo motu added back these provisions in its computation of total income.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed additional evidence despite the assessee meeting Rule 46A requirements. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, ensuring a proper hearing opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- under Section 68 was not sustainable. The assessee had produced all necessary evidence regarding the share subscribers, including names, addresses, PANs, bank statements, and confirmations. While the AO issued summons under Section 131, the addition was made primarily due to non-compliance by the investor companies' directors and the alleged meagre income of subscribers. The Tribunal found that the AO had not pointed out any deficiency in the documents furnished by the assessee and that the addition was made solely on the ground of non-compliance with summons. Relying on the cited decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition. Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for employee benefits and other expenses, the Tribunal noted that while expenses increased, the assessee's income also rose. The assessee had provided all evidence to the AO. The Tribunal held that disallowance based on presumptions and surmises is not tenable and, following CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 326 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine, and adopting a pragmatic and liberal approach as per the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the validity of Section 153C proceedings, as it was a purely legal issue with all facts available. The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were not valid. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Jasjit Singh, which clarified that the first proviso to Section 153C(1) is not confined to abatement but also applies to reckoning the period for filing returns and other practical purposes. The Tribunal found that the date of initiation of search for the assessee (the 'other person') was the date the seized material was handed over to the assessee's AO, which was 25.11.2022. As Section 153C(3) states that the provisions of Section 153C will not apply for any search initiated on or after 01.04.2021, and the initiation date in this case was subsequent to 01.04.2021, the provisions of Section 153C were inapplicable. Consequently, the impugned notices and the consequent assessment framed by the AO were quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13 and AY 2015-16, concerning the addition of ₹11,31,000 for bogus sales, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. The reasoning is that the sales were recorded in the books and offered to tax. The subsequent addition under Section 68 effectively meant the same income was taxed twice, and importantly, Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) indicates that if the addition reduces the total income, the tax sought to be evaded is nil. The Tribunal also relied on *Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax* and *CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd.*, stating that no inaccurate particulars were furnished as the sales were disclosed in audited books. For AY 2015-16, regarding the addition of ₹33,33,704 for delayed PF and ESI payment, the Tribunal held that since the assessee fully disclosed the facts in the books of account, there was no concealment of income, following *CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd.*. Similarly, for AY 2016-17, concerning the disallowance of ₹28,30,401 for delayed PF and ESI contributions, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground and held that the assessee had fully disclosed particulars in the books of account, thus not furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the case was covered by the decision in ITA No. 2586/KOL/2025. In all cases, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the additions and consequently the penalties.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54 as they had started construction within the stipulated period. The completion of construction within three years is not a strict condition for claiming the exemption, especially when the delay is due to external factors like plan approval.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that freight payments were made to individual truck drivers within the prescribed limit and that the cash payment for machinery was based on unverified messages without corroborative evidence. The AO failed to conduct proper inquiries or reject the assessee's books of account.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the notice under Section 148 dated 29.07.2022 was issued beyond the permissible time limit as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal addressed several grounds. Regarding the provision for mark-to-market loss (Assessee's Ground 1), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For period expenditure (Assessee's Ground 2), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For undisclosed income (Assessee's Ground 3), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. Regarding disallowance under section 14A (Revenue's Ground 1), the CIT(A)'s deletion was set aside and the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the dominant purpose test. For provision for mine closure (Revenue's Ground 2), the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, following AS 29. For interest on shifting and rehabilitation fund (Revenue's Ground 3), the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, accepting the assessee's custodian role. For notional lease rent (Assessee's Ground 1 for ITA 467), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For penalty charges (Assessee's Ground 2 for ITA 467), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For undisclosed income (Assessee's Ground 3 for ITA 467), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. Regarding medical expenses for retired employees (Revenue's Ground 12), the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, relying on the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court decision in Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. and holding the expenditure as being for the purpose of business. The Tribunal also directed the AO to examine certain CSR expenditures and allow them if incurred for business purposes and not capital in nature, setting aside the CIT(A)'s finding on that specific ground (Revenue's Ground 11).
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the case after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on the 'Shifting & Rehabilitation Fund' cannot be treated as the income of Coal India Ltd. as it acts merely as a custodian of the fund, with no control or beneficial ownership. The interest forms part of the fund itself and is to be utilized for specific rehabilitation purposes.
The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹1,21,00,000 was to be upheld. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning. The CIT(A) had noted that the assessee had provided confirmations from the donors, their financial statements, ITRs, and balance sheets, which showed that the donors had sufficient resources and explained sources for the gifts. The CIT(A) also observed that the donors were regular income tax assessees with substantial incomes. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the three limbs of Section 68 (identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the donors). Furthermore, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s observation that gifts received from relatives, as defined under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, are not taxable in the hands of the assessee under that section. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13 and AY 2015-16, concerning the addition of ₹11,31,000 for bogus sales, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. The reasoning is that the sales were recorded in the books and offered to tax. The subsequent addition under Section 68 effectively meant the same income was taxed twice, and importantly, Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) indicates that if the addition reduces the total income, the tax sought to be evaded is nil. The Tribunal also relied on *Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax* and *CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd.*, stating that no inaccurate particulars were furnished as the sales were disclosed in audited books. For AY 2015-16, regarding the addition of ₹33,33,704 for delayed PF and ESI payment, the Tribunal held that since the assessee fully disclosed the facts in the books of account, there was no concealment of income, following *CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd.*. Similarly, for AY 2016-17, concerning the disallowance of ₹28,30,401 for delayed PF and ESI contributions, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground and held that the assessee had fully disclosed particulars in the books of account, thus not furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the case was covered by the decision in ITA No. 2586/KOL/2025. In all cases, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the additions and consequently the penalties.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons sufficient and reasonable. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not imposable. The Tribunal noted that Section 271AAA(2) provides that no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee, in the course of search, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which it was derived, substantiates the manner, and pays the tax together with interest. The Tribunal found that the assessee had satisfied all three conditions: admitting the undisclosed income of ₹14,40,51,253/-, specifying the manner of derivation (commodity and share profits), substantiating the manner with documents and explanations, and paying the taxes thereon along with interest while filing the return of income. The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) had acknowledged the disclosure and payment of taxes. The Tribunal relied on its co-ordinate bench decision in SPS Steel & Power Ltd. vs. ACIT and other High Court judgments, which held that penalty cannot be levied merely on admission without conclusive evidence of concealment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on the fact that the matter was sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court and the prior year's orders were not stayed. However, this Tribunal respectfully disagreed with dismissing the appeal outright.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17 had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, allowing the deduction under Section 80IA. That bench had directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to follow the Hon'ble High Court's order when delivered, as the matter was sub judice. However, the present bench, while acknowledging the co-ordinate bench's order, respectfully disagreed with dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Instead of deciding on the merits, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO. The purpose of this restoration is to keep the issue alive for decision in accordance with the Hon'ble High Court's order once it is delivered. The assessee was directed to move an application before the AO after the High Court's decision. Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the seized documents contained entries of cash receipts and payments that pertained to M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. and were duly accounted for in the company's books. These were related to the sale of green tea leaves and payments to laborers, which constitute agricultural income exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had already made a clear-cut finding to this effect.
The Tribunal addressed several grounds. Regarding the provision for mark-to-market loss (Assessee's Ground 1), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For period expenditure (Assessee's Ground 2), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For undisclosed income (Assessee's Ground 3), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. Regarding disallowance under section 14A (Revenue's Ground 1), the CIT(A)'s deletion was set aside and the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the dominant purpose test. For provision for mine closure (Revenue's Ground 2), the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, following AS 29. For interest on shifting and rehabilitation fund (Revenue's Ground 3), the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, accepting the assessee's custodian role. For notional lease rent (Assessee's Ground 1 for ITA 467), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For penalty charges (Assessee's Ground 2 for ITA 467), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For undisclosed income (Assessee's Ground 3 for ITA 467), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. Regarding medical expenses for retired employees (Revenue's Ground 12), the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, relying on the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court decision in Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. and holding the expenditure as being for the purpose of business. The Tribunal also directed the AO to examine certain CSR expenditures and allow them if incurred for business purposes and not capital in nature, setting aside the CIT(A)'s finding on that specific ground (Revenue's Ground 11).
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit, finding that the assessee had provided necessary evidence and repaid the loans. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of consequential disallowances of commission and interest expenses.
The Tribunal addressed several grounds. Regarding the provision for mark-to-market loss (Assessee's Ground 1), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For period expenditure (Assessee's Ground 2), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For undisclosed income (Assessee's Ground 3), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. Regarding disallowance under section 14A (Revenue's Ground 1), the CIT(A)'s deletion was set aside and the issue was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the dominant purpose test. For provision for mine closure (Revenue's Ground 2), the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, following AS 29. For interest on shifting and rehabilitation fund (Revenue's Ground 3), the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, accepting the assessee's custodian role. For notional lease rent (Assessee's Ground 1 for ITA 467), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For penalty charges (Assessee's Ground 2 for ITA 467), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. For undisclosed income (Assessee's Ground 3 for ITA 467), the CIT(A)'s confirmation was upheld. Regarding medical expenses for retired employees (Revenue's Ground 12), the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld, relying on the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court decision in Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. and holding the expenditure as being for the purpose of business. The Tribunal also directed the AO to examine certain CSR expenditures and allow them if incurred for business purposes and not capital in nature, setting aside the CIT(A)'s finding on that specific ground (Revenue's Ground 11).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the amounts received were indeed sale proceeds of investments held by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established and that the investments themselves were accepted in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the transactions were genuine sales of investments supported by documentary evidence and confirmations. The Tribunal noted that the investments were accepted in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2012-13 and AY 2015-16, concerning the addition of ₹11,31,000 for bogus sales, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. The reasoning is that the sales were recorded in the books and offered to tax. The subsequent addition under Section 68 effectively meant the same income was taxed twice, and importantly, Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) indicates that if the addition reduces the total income, the tax sought to be evaded is nil. The Tribunal also relied on *Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax* and *CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd.*, stating that no inaccurate particulars were furnished as the sales were disclosed in audited books. For AY 2015-16, regarding the addition of ₹33,33,704 for delayed PF and ESI payment, the Tribunal held that since the assessee fully disclosed the facts in the books of account, there was no concealment of income, following *CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd.*. Similarly, for AY 2016-17, concerning the disallowance of ₹28,30,401 for delayed PF and ESI contributions, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground and held that the assessee had fully disclosed particulars in the books of account, thus not furnishing inaccurate particulars, and the case was covered by the decision in ITA No. 2586/KOL/2025. In all cases, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the additions and consequently the penalties.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on the Shifting & Rehabilitation Fund, where Coal India Ltd. acted merely as a custodian with no control or beneficial interest, could not be treated as the company's income. The interest was considered part of the fund itself and not 'real income' of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO merely on the ground of non-compliance with summons for personal appearance was not justified, especially when the assessee had filed all the evidences before the AO and the CIT(A), and no further independent inquiry was carried out by either of them, nor were any defects pointed out in the furnished evidences. The Tribunal noted that in the second round of assessment, the AO did not conduct any independent inquiry to verify the genuineness of the transactions despite the assessee furnishing all details and documents. The Tribunal found that the case was squarely covered by a series of decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The ratio decidendi is that an addition under Section 68 cannot be made solely on the basis of non-compliance with summons if the assessee has provided substantial documentary evidence and no independent verification or specific defects have been identified by the revenue authorities.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14 was indeed barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the last day for issuing a notice under Section 148, considering the surviving period and the applicability of TOLA, expired on 01.07.2022. The notice in question was issued on 30.07.2022, which falls beyond this extended period. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, particularly paragraph 114, which clarifies how the limitation period is to be computed in light of TOLA. The reasoning was that the TOLA extended the time limits for certain actions, but any notice issued beyond the surviving period, as computed under the Act read with TOLA, would be time-barred. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO was deemed invalid and bad in law. The Tribunal quashed the assessment. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeals. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal remanded the issue of disallowance to the Assessing Officer for re-computation, excluding investments in subsidiaries that did not pay dividends. The disallowance under Section 14A was held not applicable for computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal decided that interest earned on the Shifting & Rehabilitation Fund, where the assessee acted merely as a custodian with no control or beneficial use, did not constitute taxable income. The assessee's role was to pool and utilize funds for specific rehabilitation purposes as directed by the government.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the amounts received were indeed sale proceeds of investments held by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established and that the investments themselves were accepted in earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act was defective because it failed to specify under which of the three contingencies of section 271AAB the penalty was being proposed. This lack of specificity rendered the notice vague and deprived the assessee of a reasonable opportunity to respond. Citing various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal concluded that a penalty cannot be imposed based on a defective notice.
The Tribunal noted that a previous appeal (ITA No.2612/Kol/2024) concerning the same issue and assessment year had already been decided in favor of the assessee. In that previous order, the Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition to the extent of 1.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 143(2) and frame the assessment order, as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer passed the order under section 144 of the Act without adjudication on merits, depriving the assessee of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish a direct nexus between the income and expenditure to justify the deduction claimed under section 57(iii). However, the assessee's counsel offered to submit documentary evidence to establish the nexus and trail of funds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after granting an opportunity of being heard, and lifted any attachment made by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2012-13 was unabated on the date of the search (September 9, 2015), as the assessment under Section 143(3) had already been framed on March 2, 2015. The Tribunal noted that the AO relied on the books of account and evidence furnished by the assessee, and did not refer to any incriminating material seized during the search. The Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition by relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. The Tribunal also found that the case was squarely covered by its own co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, which followed the Abhisar Buildwell judgment. The principle is that in the case of unabated/completed assessments, additions under Section 153A can only be made with reference to incriminating materials seized during the search. The Revenue's appeal is dismissed, and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits of the case. The interest of justice requires the appeal to be restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company was struck off from the Registrar of Companies on 29/08/2016. The notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 29/03/2017, after the company had been struck off. The Tribunal found the notice to be invalid and consequently quashed it, along with the consequential assessment order.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had mentioned cancellation of registration, but the assessee presented evidence of provisional registration granted for AY 2021-2022 to 2023-2024 and subsequently for AY 2024-2025 to 2026-2027. The submissions by the rival parties were considered.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the profit and loss account. It was observed that the assessee had not earned the interest of Rs. 4,86,563/- as calculated by the AO. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to Rs.3,250.97, as it could only be made for investments that actually yielded exempt income. The addition of Rs.6,16,71,539/- for bogus investments was deleted as it lacked legal justification and supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the loan of Rs. 40,00,000 was repaid and the lender's identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were established with documentary evidence. Regarding Section 14A, it was noted that the assessee had suo motu disallowed a sum, and no expenditure was directly related to income forming part of total income for the disallowance made by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the 700-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the assessee's affidavit citing reasons beyond their control. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide submissions to the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's claim that relevant documents were filed but not considered, and referencing legal precedents, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to provide another opportunity. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's argument that TDS credits from earlier years, related to income offered in AY 2022-23, should be considered. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after reviewing the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee.