Loading ITAT cases…
169 orders · Page 1 of 4
The Tribunal held that the settlement amount of Rs. 6,58,00,000/- received by the assessee from SIL was in the nature of a capital receipt not liable to tax. The reasoning was based on the principle that compensation received for the surrender of a 'right to sue' is a capital receipt. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including its own decision in similar cases, and distinguished the facts from cases where there was a clear transfer of right, title, and interest. The AO was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 6,58,00,000/-. Regarding the protective addition of Rs. 11,42,00,000/-, the Tribunal found no justification for it. It was noted that this amount belonged to three other bodies corporate who were parties to the settlement agreement and had received their shares, accounting for it in their books. Since the assessee did not receive this amount, nor did it relate to or belong to the assessee, the Tribunal vacated the protective addition. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) had exceeded his jurisdiction by making a protective assessment without a substantive assessment of the other parties.
The ITAT had previously set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the quantum appeal and remitted the matter back to the AO for reassessment. The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the basis for penalty proceedings, was set aside and reassessment was directed, the penalty proceedings became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for granting summary relief concerning the TDS credit for dividend income. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not doubt the corresponding sales made by the assessee. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee maintained books of accounts and the purchases were accounted for. The mere cancellation of GST registration of the supplier cannot be a ground to treat entire purchases as bogus. The issue was covered by the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court and a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 149(1) of the Act, especially considering the period of six years for reopening assessments in certain cases. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified the position on the validity and limitation of such notices.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not point out any defects or discrepancies in the documents filed by the assessee, nor did the CIT(A). The AO also failed to issue notices u/s 133(6) or 131 for independent verification. The addition was made solely on the basis that the assessee had advanced money to the subscriber firm.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, was without jurisdiction as it was issued prior to the notification conferring jurisdiction for such faceless assessments. The Tribunal found support in various judicial pronouncements that quashed similar assessments based on jurisdictional issues.
The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing loan confirmations, ledger copies, bank statements, and proof of net worth for the lenders. The retracted statement lacked evidentiary value, and the AO failed to establish the genuineness of the loans or the assessee's lack of creditworthiness.
The Tribunal noted that the share of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. was not listed among the 84 penny stocks identified by the investigation wing. The Tribunal found that the case was covered by a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the same shares. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reopening of assessment was not based on substantive material or application of mind.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided a basis for applying a 5% net profit rate on commission. Given the assessee's actual declared commission income of 0.25% to 0.30% and the lack of justification for the 5% rate, the Tribunal found it reasonable to apply a net profit rate of 0.5%.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the application. However, considering the merits of the case, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay. The issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal noted that the reopening notice was issued after a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Section 151 mandates that for such cases, approval must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, in this case, the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which is not the competent authority as per the law.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee, finding it to be a purely legal issue with all necessary facts already on record, and that an assessee is at liberty to raise such issues before appellate authorities. The Tribunal noted that the assessment was framed by the NFAC on March 30, 2022, which was after the provisions of Section 151A of the Act, providing for faceless assessment, were notified to be effective from March 29, 2022, vide notification no. 18/2022. Although Section 151A was brought on the statute by the Taxation and Other Law (realization and amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020, with effect from November 1, 2020, the NFAC's assumption of jurisdiction and framing of the assessment order occurred prior to the effective date of the notification enabling such faceless reassessment. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without jurisdiction and therefore null and void. The Tribunal relied on decisions of a co-ordinate Bench in MD Mahimud SK Vs ITO, the Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income-tax Officer, the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India, and the Bombay High Court in Samp Furniture (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer. The Tribunal quashed the assessment framed by the AO/NFAC.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 17 days, which was condoned. While the lower authorities had dismissed the appeal, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and decided to set aside the order and restore the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that for private discretionary trusts whose income is chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate, the surcharge has to be computed with reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading 'surcharge on income tax'. Since the assessee's income in all assessment years was below Rs. 50 lakhs, no surcharge was attracted. The Tribunal reasoned that the definition of 'maximum marginal rate' under Section 2(29C) refers to the rate of income-tax including surcharge, if any, applicable to the highest slab of income. However, the applicability of surcharge is governed by the specific provisions in the Finance Act. As per Paragraph A, Part (I) of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 2023, the threshold limit for surcharge applicability is Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the AO CPC erred in including surcharge. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the coordinate bench in Araadhya Jain Trust (supra) and set aside the order of the CIT(A), directing the AO not to include surcharge in the maximum rate of tax. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was ex-parte and the assessee could not properly present its case. Given the assessee's claim that cash deposits were from fee collections and a desire to justify the source, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. Penalties under Sections 271B and 271AAC(1) were also set aside pending the fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the issue of sale of unlisted shares was covered by a coordinate bench decision in a group company's case with similar facts. The earlier assessments had accepted these investments, and the assessee had provided all necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention had merit. It acknowledged that the company is engaged in tea growing and manufacturing, and therefore, its income must be assessed as per Rule 8 of the IT Rules, which mandates that 60% of the income is agricultural income (exempt) and only 40% is taxable. Consequently, the disallowance for delayed employee PF contributions should be made in the same ratio, meaning only 40% of the delayed PF amount should be added to the taxable income. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to re-assess the income in accordance with Rule 8 of the IT Rules, specifically noting that only 40% of the delayed PF would be added to the taxable part of the income. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that for private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate, surcharge is only applicable if the income exceeds Rs. 50 lacs, as per the Finance Act. Therefore, surcharge was not leviable in this case.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a change of opinion and that the reasons recorded were not sufficiently substantiated. The Tribunal noted that one of the creditors mentioned was incorrect and that the original assessment had considered the unsecured loans.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC under section 143(1) was beyond its scope. The filing of Form 9A within the due date was directive, not mandatory, and since it was available at the time of processing, the deemed application could not be disregarded. The intimation issued under section 143(1) was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was made ex-parte and the AO had not correctly appreciated the applicable provisions, and the assessee could not present its case properly. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment de novo, allowing the assessee an opportunity to justify the source of cash deposits.
The Tribunal found that both the assessment and appellate orders were ex-parte. This was considered a violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the AO to decide the matter on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the addition of ₹2,06,12,752/-, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the assessee's submission that the Central Bank of India account belonged to her husband, Shri Santu Das. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been divorced from her husband prior to the assessment, and the AO's inclusion of these funds in her income was unsustainable. For the deposits in the Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had categorically stated these were from the sale of jewellery, which was offered as long-term capital gains in her return of income. The computation of income showed long-term capital gains of ₹28,04,032/- from the sale of items. The Tribunal held that the AO had already accepted the income as per the ITR and then made an addition on account of bank deposits, which was erroneous. The Tribunal also found that the addition of ₹18,448/- towards interest variation was incorrect as the declared interest income in the ITR already included this amount. Consequently, the addition of ₹2,06,12,752/- and the interest variation were deleted. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Smt. S. Rajalakshmi Vs. ITO. The grounds related to the sale of ornaments were also allowed as they were already decided under the main addition.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below had factually misunderstood the transactions. The assessee recorded job work transactions by treating sundry creditors as debtors for administrative convenience. The additions made by the AO under sections 69C and 68 were found to be misapplied as section 69C is for unexplained expenditure and section 68 is for unexplained cash credits, neither of which applied to outstanding wages payable.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹50,00,000 made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not justified and set aside the order of the NFAC. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided loan confirmation, PAN details, address, and the lender's audited balance sheet to the AO. Furthermore, the loan was repaid in subsequent financial years through banking channels. The Tribunal found that once the assessee furnished all the requisite evidence regarding the loan transaction and its repayment, and the AO failed to point out any specific infirmity in these documents, no addition under Section 68 was warranted. The Tribunal relied on a series of decisions from the Jurisdictional High Court (Kolkata) and the Gujarat High Court, specifically citing PCIT-2, Kolkata Vs. Rahul Premier India Agency Private Limited and others, and Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, which held that if an assessee provides all evidence regarding loan creditors and the loans are repaid, such amounts cannot be added to income under Section 68. The ratio decidendi is that the burden of proof under Section 68 is discharged by the assessee by providing identity, capacity, and genuineness of the creditor, and if the loan is repaid, it further substantiates the transaction.
For AY 2022-23, the Tribunal held that the assessee's EPF contribution of ₹4,05,33,558, paid on 19.10.2021, was within the 5-day grace period. Citing the decision in *Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT*, which interpreted the grace period to apply to both employer and employee contributions, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention. The Tribunal noted that the payment was made within the grace period and that the calendar indicated public holidays between the due date and the payment date, with cheques being issued on the 18th and cleared on the 19th. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition. For AY 2021-22, the Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the belated filing of the SFT return. The delay was attributed to a bank reorganization process and migration to a higher version of the core banking solution, leading to technical glitches that prevented the generation of required data. The Tribunal noted that similar lapses had resulted in penalties being dropped in other cases. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) had passed ex-parte orders. The NFAC's order was passed without deciding the issues on merit, despite numerous notices, which the Tribunal found to be in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had also passed an ex-parte assessment. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the learned AO with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal also clarified that the assessee should not seek adjournments unless for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the mere writing off of debts as bad in the books of account is sufficient for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The assessee had adequately provided evidence to the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in T.R.F. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and CBDT Circular No. 12/2016, which clarified that proving recovery status is not mandatory.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the addition of ₹2,30,00,000/- on account of the sale of unlisted equity shares (Issue 1), the Tribunal found that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of a co-ordinate bench in the case of Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt Ltd. Vs. DCIT, which dealt with similar facts involving investments held by amalgamating companies and accepted in earlier assessments. The Tribunal noted that the investments were accepted by the Revenue in the hands of the amalgamating companies in earlier assessment years. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and directed the AO to delete the addition. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the Assessee's ground no. 4 was allowed. Regarding the part-sustained addition of ₹11,50,000/- (5% of total sale value) (Issue 2), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not provided any basis for this direction to add 5% of the total sales towards estimated profit. The Tribunal found this direction to be without substantive basis, based on presumptions and surmises, and therefore, unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) to this extent, allowing the Assessee's cross-objection. Regarding the addition of ₹31,00,000/- on account of non-genuine profit from bogus trades (Issue 3), the Tribunal noted that the Assessee had derived commodity profit of ₹31 lacs, which was credited to the profit and loss account and offered for tax. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not pointed out any defects in the documents furnished by the Assessee or brought on record any evidence to controvert the Assessee's submissions, relying solely on SEBI reports. The Tribunal held that the AO must conduct an independent enquiry and cannot solely rely on investigation wing/SEBI reports. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and directed the AO to delete the addition, allowing Assessee's ground no. 3.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 149(1) of the Act, especially considering the period of six years for reopening assessments in certain cases. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified the position on the validity and limitation of such notices.
The Tribunal held that once the amount of investment made in the assessee company by the subscriber, M/s Lovely Properties Pvt. Ltd., has been settled under the VSVS scheme and the due taxes were paid by the subscriber, there is no justification for adding back the amount of share capital and premium in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the subscriber's assessment was framed under Section 147/143(3) and an addition of Rs. 3,32,37,000/- was made, out of which the investment in the assessee company was a part. The fact that the subscriber paid due taxes on this amount was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A), who recorded this finding but still dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition of ₹7,57,50,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) noted that the loans were received through account payee cheques/RTGS and were recorded in the audited books of accounts. The assessee had also provided interest and deducted TDS. Crucially, the CIT(A) observed that a substantial part of the loans was routed through a group company, M/s Sanyukt Vanijya Private Limited, representing sale proceeds of unquoted shares. The CIT(A) concluded that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were substantiated by the evidence filed, including confirmations and banking entries. The AO's reliance on the fact that the lenders were shell companies and that summons were not responded to was considered insufficient to disregard the documentary evidence and banking transactions provided by the assessee, especially when the funds were ultimately traced to a group company. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the share of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. was not listed among the 84 penny stocks identified by the investigation wing. The Tribunal found that the case was covered by a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the same shares. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reopening of assessment was not based on substantive material or application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was without jurisdiction and therefore invalid. The Tribunal noted that Section 151A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides for faceless assessments, was notified from 29.03.2022, although it was brought on the statute book earlier. The assessment order in question was passed before the notification date. Therefore, the assessment was considered null and void. The Tribunal relied on decisions from its co-ordinate bench in MD Mahimud SK Vs ITO, the Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income-tax Officer, the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India, and the Bombay High Court in Samp Furniture (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, which dealt with identical issues in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO was quashed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found 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 entries represented receipts from the sale of green leaves and payments to labour. The CIT(A) had made a clear finding to this effect. The Tribunal noted that M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. derives income from agricultural activity (growing and selling tea leaves), which is exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these cash receipts and payments were already booked in the company's accounts and related to agricultural activities, the addition made in the hands of the assessee was not justified. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which had deleted the addition. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as not pressed. The operative direction was to uphold the CIT(A)'s order, thereby deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that surcharge is not applicable to private discretionary trusts when their income is below Rs. 50 lakhs. The maximum marginal rate should be computed based on the income tax rate and applicable surcharge as per the Finance Act, considering the income slab.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all relevant documentary evidence, including the lender's PAN, balance sheet, confirmation, and bank statement, and had also repaid the loan with interest after deducting TDS. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court (e.g., PCIT-2, Kolkata Vs. Rahul Premier India Agency Private Limited) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd.) which state that once the assessee furnishes all evidence regarding the loan creditor and the loan is repaid, no addition can be made under Section 68. The Tribunal emphasized that the repayment of the loan, supported by documentary evidence, could not be ignored. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. Ground No. 2, being consequential, was also allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for AYs 2021-22 and 2022-23, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine, and the Revenue did not object. Regarding the EPF payment for AY 2022-23, the Tribunal noted that the payment was made on 19.10.2021, within a 5-day grace period after the due date of 15.10.2021. Citing the decision in 'Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT', the Tribunal held that the 5-day grace period, as per the Manual of Accounting Procedure, applies to both employer and employee contributions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and the restoration order by the CIT(A) were set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. For AY 2021-22, concerning the penalty for belated SFT filing, the Tribunal found that the delay was due to the bank's reorganization and migration to a new core banking solution, causing technical glitches. The Tribunal considered this a reasonable cause and noted that penalties were dropped in similar cases. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the penalty. The Tribunal expressly left no issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention had merit. It acknowledged that the company is engaged in tea growing and manufacturing, and therefore, its income must be assessed as per Rule 8 of the IT Rules, which mandates that 60% of the income is agricultural income (exempt) and only 40% is taxable. Consequently, the disallowance for delayed employee PF contributions should be made in the same ratio, meaning only 40% of the delayed PF amount should be added to the taxable income. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to re-assess the income in accordance with Rule 8 of the IT Rules, specifically noting that only 40% of the delayed PF would be added to the taxable part of the income. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the application. However, considering the merits of the case, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay. The issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made withdrawals from the bank account from AY 2011-12 onwards, which were redeposited in AY 2015-16. While the AO and CIT(A) rejected the assessee's explanation, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s comment regarding demonetization was factually incorrect, as the deposits were made in AY 2016-17, whereas demonetization occurred in AY 2017-18. The Tribunal acknowledged the serious illness of the assessee's wife and the need for funds for her treatment, noting her subsequent death on January 13, 2025. The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed a proper cash flow statement detailing withdrawals and deposits. Consequently, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s finding, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and directed the AO to delete the addition of ₹12,11,000.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The Tribunal noted that the assessment was made ex parte and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on July 31, 2022, for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the relaxation granted by TOLA from April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021, is not available for the impugned assessment year, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal. This decision was followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd., which explicitly held that reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16 is not permissible in the extended period as per TOLA from April 1, 2021. The Tribunal also acknowledged similar views taken by the Rajasthan High Court and the ratio laid down in Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal found the reopening of assessment to be barred by limitation and quashed the assessment framed. The operative direction was to quash the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the Assessing Officer, preventing a decision on merits. The NFAC also rejected the additional evidence filed by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal found that restoring the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer would serve the ends of justice. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the appeal denovo, taking into account all the evidence the assessee may file, and to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was against an order u/s 250 which did not pertain to the reassessment order u/s 147. The grounds of appeal did not emanate from the impugned order of the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was correctly held to be infructuous by the CIT(A).