Loading ITAT cases…
216 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the revenue's appeal was less than the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was considered not maintainable as it was contrary to the department's policy decision.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals before the Tribunal, as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an 80-year-old person suffering from dementia, it would not be practical to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer. The deposits were found to be from the assessee's other bank accounts, thus the addition was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not claim exempt income or loss from the partnership firm in their return. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC without such a claim renders the intimation liable to be quashed. Additionally, the intimation u/s.143(1) was issued without providing the mandatory notice to the assessee about proposed adjustments, making it unsustainable.
The tribunal noted that the X-rays were taken in April 2024 and the CIT(A)'s order was dated 26.08.2024, with the final report being from 21.11.2024. The radiologist report indicated no significant abnormality. The tribunal found the reasons for the delay were not explained and the assessee could conduct business. The delay was not condoned.
The Tribunal held that the filing of the auditor's report along with the return of income is a procedural provision. The denial of exemption under Section 11 by the CPC was unsustainable as it was not an adjustment for the purpose of intimation under Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the denial of rebate under section 87A by the CPC was based on system-driven logic, not statutory mandate. The interpretation upholding such denial was not in consonance with the law. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision, quashing the intimation as erroneous.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced confirmation regarding creditors before the AO and CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication. The assessee was granted adequate opportunity of being heard and was directed to cooperate in the proceedings.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim vs. Union of India, allowed the exemption under Section 10(26AAA) by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. For the cash credit addition, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty under Section 271D was set aside as the transaction was through a cheque and constituted a journal entry, not attracting Section 269SS.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It also confirmed the order of the CIT(A) regarding the treatment of expenditure on repairs of leased property as revenue expenditure, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal further dismissed the Revenue's ground related to depreciation on guest house flats, as the issue was settled by previous Tribunal orders in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make disallowances on an estimation basis when the books of accounts are not rejected. The disallowance should be specifically identified with supporting evidence.
The tribunal followed the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Araadhya Jain Trust. It was held that when the income of a private trust is below Rs.50 lakhs, no surcharge is leviable.
The adjustment made by the CPC in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, which denied the assessee's application for expenses and treated total receipts as income, was found to be impermissible and unsubstantial.
The Tribunal noted that the statement of income and expenditure and the list of fixed assets did not show the acquisition of fixed assets as an application of income. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation. The AO was directed to grant the benefit of depreciation as claimed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It then adjudicated on various grounds, allowing some and dismissing others, often by referring to its decision in ITA No. 1246/KOL/2019 for AY 2012-13. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to appear for hearings. No representation was made by the assessee, and no evidence was produced to substantiate their claim. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee had no submission to make.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and perused the CIT(A)'s order. It was noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons for the significant delay. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54F. Regarding the ownership of other properties, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that 110, Southern Avenue was jointly held, and 13, BT Road was industrial land, thus not violating the proviso to Section 54F. On the issue of construction commencement and utilization of sale proceeds, the Tribunal, following various High Court judgments including CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain and the principles laid down in Section 54, held that there is no stipulation in Section 54F requiring direct utilization of capital gains for purchase/construction, nor a specific commencement date for construction, as long as the property is completed within three years of the sale. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's contention of a colourable device, noting that the shares were gifted by the husband's brother, not the spouse, and that the husband's brother had also claimed Section 54F exemption. The Tribunal found the acquisition and construction in female family members' names to be culturally influenced and noted a similar exemption was allowed to another family member, Smt. Rashmi Goenka, on identical facts. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the AO admitted a mistake in levying interest under Section 234C. It was observed that the returned income was accepted, and no interest under Section 234C was leviable. Therefore, the AO was directed to delete the interest charged under Section 234C and recompute interest under Sections 234D and 244A.
The Tribunal held that the amalgamation was approved by the High Court and the AO was not justified in questioning its validity based on unsubstantiated third-party statements. The SEBI's order did not implicate the assessee, and the evidence presented by the assessee for the genuineness of the transactions was not found to be false or fabricated.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued notices, but the assessee failed to furnish details. However, considering the interest of justice and the prayer of the assessee, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the reliance on unofficial web portals instead of official MCA records for the share transaction was unsustainable. The alleged share transaction related to FY 2010-11 and could not be taxed in AY 2018-19. The disallowance under section 40A(3) was made mechanically without examining the evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the liabilities transferred were indeed related to the demerged undertaking and that Section 2(19AA)(iv) does not mandate valuation as per Rule 11UA. Therefore, the conditions for demerger were met.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the rental income should be taxed under 'Income from House Property' as the company's primary business was auto parts, not property letting. Consequently, only statutory deductions under that head were allowable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It then adjudicated on various grounds, allowing some and dismissing others, often referencing its own findings from earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid because it was not issued in the prescribed format as per CBDT instructions and potentially by an authority without jurisdiction. Consequently, all subsequent assessment proceedings are also considered invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden by satisfying the conditions of Section 68. The proviso to Section 68 introduced in 2012 was prospective and not applicable to the Assessment Year 2012-13. The CIT(A)'s reasoning was based on suspicion, not tangible evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not examined the issues properly, including the applicability of Section 44AD, the nature of expenses, and the sources of income. Due to the need for proper factual examination, the issues were restored to the AO.
The tribunal acknowledged that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It then proceeded to dismiss Ground No. 2 of the appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order regarding repairs and maintenance expenses. Similarly, Ground No. 3 was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on depreciation on residential flats used as a guest house, following previous tribunal orders.
The Tribunal observed that the notice under section 143(2) and the assessment order did not explicitly state it was a limited scrutiny. Furthermore, the assessee did not fully cooperate with the assessment proceedings and failed to comply with notices under section 133(6). Therefore, for the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed belatedly by 29 days, which was condoned. The assessee, operating a travel agency, did not produce evidence for petrol, diesel, and vehicle hire charges before the AO or CIT(A). Consequently, fresh evidence could not be admitted.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's claim of illness and the fact that the delay was substantial. While noting the medical report didn't directly relate to the delay, they condoned the delay considering humanity and reasonableness. The Tribunal then addressed the merits of the case regarding undisclosed income from cash deposits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the merits of the case. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after considering documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the share premium of Rs. 5,03,65,960/- was received in the year 2008-09 and not in the year ending 31.03.2012. The documentary evidence substantiated this claim. The CIT(A) upheld the addition on the ground that the assessee failed to provide supporting documents, which was contrary to the evidence on record.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal solely on the ground of non-submission of documentary evidence. In the interest of natural justice and considering the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the merits of the additions, despite the assessee's submissions being available. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).
The tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to unusual circumstances and condoned it. The tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce evidence during assessment and appellate proceedings, leading to an ex parte order by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The reasons recorded by the AO indicated that the reopening was based on a perusal of materials already on record during the original assessment proceedings. The AO noted that the gross rental receipts included rent, electricity charges recovery, service charges, and permission fee, and the assessee had claimed standard deduction under Section 24(1) on these components other than rent, leading to escaped income. However, the Tribunal found that this information was available to the AO in the original assessment. Therefore, it was a case of mere change of opinion, not supported by any new tangible material. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited and Mangalam Publications vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of primary documents already on record, without new tangible material, are in the nature of review and not reassessment. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reopening and the consequent assessment order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order is bad in law due to the Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the returned income was ₹47,89,100 and the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by ITO Ward 2(3), Kolkata, who, according to CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, did not have jurisdiction for income exceeding ₹20,00,000. The Tribunal found no valid order of transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act. It relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Kusum Goyal, which held that even for intra-city transfers, statutory formalities, including issuing an order, are required. The Tribunal also referred to the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Amiya Gopal Dutta, which quashed an assessment passed in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The Tribunal clarified that Section 292BB of the Act, which deems notices valid if the assessee participates in proceedings, does not cure the complete absence of a notice emanating from the department or a notice issued by an officer without jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by expanding the scope of inquiry beyond limited scrutiny without following the prescribed procedure for conversion to complete scrutiny. The Tribunal also found that the addition on account of cash deposit was not sustainable as the assessee had provided sufficient explanation.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The reasons recorded by the AO indicated that the reopening was based on a perusal of materials already on record during the original assessment proceedings. The AO noted that the gross rental receipts included rent, electricity charges recovery, service charges, and permission fee, and the assessee had claimed standard deduction under Section 24(1) on these components other than rent, leading to escaped income. However, the Tribunal found that this information was available to the AO in the original assessment. Therefore, it was a case of mere change of opinion, not supported by any new tangible material. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited and Mangalam Publications vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of primary documents already on record, without new tangible material, are in the nature of review and not reassessment. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the reopening and the consequent assessment order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not claimed the expenses related to car depreciation, insurance, and loan interest, nor had income been declared under Section 44AD. Regarding the forfeiture of earnest money deposit (EMD) for coal procurement, the Tribunal held that it was a revenue expense related to the assessee's business operations and not a capital expenditure.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s power to set aside the case to the AO was not available after June 1, 2001. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal noted that Section 68 of the Act is widely worded and empowers the ITO to enquire into the nature and source of any sum credited. The CIT(A) had exceeded his power by issuing directions to the AO to assess 'real money', implicitly setting aside the assessment order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 498 days in filing the appeal, finding it to be due to reasonable administrative reasons and not a deliberate attempt by the assessee. The Tribunal also admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the notice u/s 148 being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that non-compliance with summons issued under Section 131 of the Act cannot be the sole ground for making an addition under Section 68 of the Act, especially when the assessee has furnished all necessary documents proving the identity, creditworthiness of subscribers, and genuineness of transactions. The proviso to Section 68, introduced by the Finance Act 2012, was not applicable to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal relied on various judicial decisions that support this view.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the NFAC, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the NFAC had found that the goods purchased were sold to a semi-government department, and since the sales were not doubted and the books of accounts were not rejected by the AO, no disallowance for bogus purchases could be made. The assessee had also furnished substantial documentation, including cash book, bank payment evidence, ledger accounts, e-way bills, and supplier lists. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the NFAC's order and upheld it. For the second issue, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided all details of recipients, commission, and contractual payments, along with their PAN, balance sheets, ITR confirmations, and bank statements, establishing that these were regular payments incurred wholly for the assessee's business. The AO had failed to produce any material to prove the payments were bogus or unreasonable, and the recipients had offered the income to tax. The Tribunal found the NFAC's reversal of the AO's order to be correct and upheld it. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessee provides substantial evidence of purchases and expenses, and the corresponding sales are not doubted, and recipients have offered income to tax, additions or disallowances made by the AO without sufficient material to disprove the genuineness of transactions are liable to be deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on both grounds.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on conjecture and surmises, lacking proper evidence and verification. The AO failed to establish a direct link between the alleged transactions and the assessee, and did not provide sufficient material to support the additions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 48,85,00,000/- on account of alleged cash loans and the consequential addition of Rs. 3,41,95,000/- as interest. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly held that the documents seized from Mr. Kasera's premises were inadmissible as evidence because they did not suggest the appellant had taken any cash loans. Furthermore, Mr. Kasera had never named the assessee and had denied any transactions with them in remand proceedings. The Tribunal agreed that the AO had acted on presumptions and surmises without conducting proper inquiries or corroborating evidence. The AO's failure to conduct inquiries from persons who received stated amounts from the assessee rendered the document unreliable. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in this regard and dismissed the revenue's grounds related to this issue. The Tribunal also noted that grounds 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the revenue's appeal were consequential to ground 3, which was decided against the revenue, rendering them infructuous. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on alleged documents and statements from third parties without independent verification by the AO. The AO's reliance on conjecture and surmises, and the denial of cross-examination, rendered the addition unsustainable.