Loading ITAT cases…
534 orders · Page 8 of 11
The Tribunal held that there is no restriction under section 54 on the number of residential houses transferred, and exemption is available even if the investment is made in one residential house. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had complied with the conditions for section 54F.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the non-filing within the limitation period. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal ex-parte due to a delay without properly considering the facts regarding the service of the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a valid reason for believing there was no delay and that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the confirmation from M/s. Bagla International was not credible as it was an attestation of the assessee's own ledger copy and M/s. Bagla International did not respond to notices, even from the official liquidator. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation illogical, especially considering M/s. Bagla International was under liquidation.
The Tribunal noted that the disallowance pertains to an expense related to AY 2019-20. A mistake in the Tax Audit Report led to the amount being incorrectly reported and subsequently disallowed again for AY 2020-21, resulting in double disallowance. The Tribunal observed that the CPC/AO should not have ignored the revised Tax Audit Report.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid because it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was being levied. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the Revenue's appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024. As no exceptions applied, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable and thus deserved to be dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee neither appeared for the hearing nor sought adjournment. It affirmed the AO's calculation of taxable income at 1% of the work in progress/opening stock for AY 2018-19 as the profit element and found no infirmity in the assessment order, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that since the appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 had already been disposed of by an earlier order, the present appeal was rendered infructuous. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. and its own precedent, held that a Co-operative Bank is indeed a 'Co-operative Society' as defined under Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, interest income from investments with such banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Supreme Court's decision in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. was distinguished as factually different.
The Tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Thorapadi Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. and its own precedent, held that a Co-operative Bank is indeed a 'Co-operative Society' as defined under Section 2(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, interest income from investments with such banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Supreme Court's decision in Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. was distinguished as factually different.
The Tribunal found that the issue of abnormally high profits and the validity of the Section 10A deduction required thorough investigation. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal observed that the DVO did not properly consider the assessee's objections regarding the property valuation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO, directing a fresh reference to the DVO. The DVO is mandated to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard and address all objections before finalizing the valuation, after which the AO will make a fresh decision.
During the appellate proceedings, it was brought to the Tribunal's attention by the assessee's representative that an electronic appeal (ITA No. 4771/Mum/2023) had already been filed for the same cause of action, and this manual appeal was filed erroneously. The Departmental Representative did not controvert this submission. Consequently, the Tribunal found the present appeal to be a duplicate and thus dismissed it as infructuous.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence presented by the assessee under Rule 29, finding a substantial cause for their production and materiality for the controversy. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for re-examination, considering both previously produced and additional documents on their merits and in accordance with law.
Following a decision by a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter, including all related issues, was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with similar directions to consider the overriding effect of the NCLT moratorium.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without a factual or legal finding, partly because the assessee provided inconsistent email IDs for communication. To ensure the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate the appeal after communicating with the assessee on both email IDs provided and affording a proper hearing.
The Tribunal observed that notices were sent via email, and the assessee did not appear or comply. However, the provided email IDs differed in Form 35 and Form 36. Due to the ex-parte order without proper participation from the assessee, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the matter to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, referencing a Gujarat High Court ruling, decided to remit the issue of prior period expenses (Rs. 24,12,000/-) back to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying specific conditions related to stock movement, sales proceeds, delivery, and tax implications. The disallowance of notional interest (Rs. 3,40,800/-) on the loan given to the father was upheld as the assessee failed to charge interest on this non-business loan, despite paying interest on other unsecured loans.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous without considering the assessee's subsequent request to keep the appeal in abeyance due to the pending Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Form 5. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, meritorious adjudication of the appeal grounds after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal, and the Departmental Representative did not object. The Tribunal, upon hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear, and the Ld.DR relied on the CIT(E)'s order. However, the Tribunal also considered the assessee's grounds of appeal and the fact that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard or rectify mistakes, especially given the introduction of a new process during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal decided to allow one more opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) after filing the appeal, leading the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal ex-parte without a reasoned decision on merits. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merit. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending hearings and making submissions, and to refrain from seeking adjournments except for compelling reasons. The CIT(A) was directed to ensure observance of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the case. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to be heard, leading to a violation of natural justice at both the assessment and first appellate stages. Consequently, the entire matter was remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the submissions. It noted that the assessee did not file a return of income nor paid the requisite advance tax as per Section 208 and 249(4)(b). Consequently, the appeal was not admissible as per the provisions of the Act. However, for statistical purposes, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite notices and the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. However, to ensure principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, directing proper communication via email.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company was incorporated on October 12, 2009, and the work was awarded to a consortium on August 20, 2009. The concession agreement was entered into on November 18, 2011, which is beyond the assessment year 2010-11. The auditor's certificate in Form 10CCB also stated that the concessionaire agreement was not executed in favor of the assessee till the date of filing the return. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's alternative argument that the Letter of Acceptance dated October 30, 2009, could be considered an agreement. It also noted that details regarding the transfer of rights from the consortium to the assessee company were not furnished before the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for a fresh examination of four specific points: (i) whether the Letter of Acceptance can be considered an agreement under Section 80IA(4)(i)(b); (ii) if it is, whether the assessee is eligible for deduction from that date; (iii) whether the explanation to Section 80IA applies; and (iv) how the consortium's rights were transferred to the assessee. The AO was directed to re-examine the issue after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the reasons for reopening were found to be erroneous and there was a disparity between the 'reason to believe' and the actual addition made under Section 68. Relying on previous orders in the assessee's own case and a High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that the reassessment and addition were bad in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by applying a liberal and pragmatic approach, citing Supreme Court judgments on sufficient cause. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) which was attracted. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that a penal provision must be construed strictly and any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO was incorrect in making the disallowance solely based on the vendor's non-substantiated physical existence, without considering the comprehensive documentary evidence provided by the assessee. It found that the vendor was registered with the Sales Tax Department and confirmed to be in active status as per MCA records. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 9,75,000 towards depreciation on software was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not passed the impugned order on merits but had dismissed the assessee's appeal in default. While acknowledging that the assessee had not appeared before the first appellate authority despite notices, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending hearings and making submissions before the CIT(A) for expeditious and effective disposal, advising against seeking adjournments except for compelling reasons. The CIT(A) was also directed to ensure observance of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, restoring the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the penalty, following various High Court and ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases was justified and reasonable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee deals in ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and the 100% addition by the AO was excessive and unreasonable. The Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench's decision in ITA No. 5917/MUM/2018 for AY 2011-12, which observed that profit margins in ferrous and non-ferrous items are meager (2-4%) and applied a 5% GP rate on bogus purchases. While that decision directed the AO to apply 4%, the Tribunal in the present case found it just and proper to apply 5% due to the assessee's clandestine activities, aligning with the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found the Supreme Court's decision in N.K. Proteins Ltd. not attracted to the facts of this case. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed. Regarding the assessee's cross-objections, the Tribunal held that the application of a 5% GP rate was just, proper, and reasonable, and thus the cross-objections were also dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in HDFC Bank Ltd. Thus, the interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted. For disallowances under Rule 8D(2)(i) and 8D(2)(iii), which were less than the assessee's voluntary disallowance, the AO was directed to accept the assessee's disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the penalty, following various High Court and ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with notices during the CIT(A) proceedings. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department within two months for their lack of diligence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the penalty, following various High Court and ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not considered the issue on merits and had made the addition without examining the evidence. The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,08,000/- made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in S.A. Builders vs. CIT, which states that the expression "commercial expediency" is of wide import and includes expenditure incurred by a prudent businessman for the purpose of business, even if not under a legal obligation. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided advances for trade purposes and business expansion, which constituted commercial expediency. The advances were made out of interest-bearing funds, and the allowability of interest should be examined from the angle of commercial expediency. The Tribunal noted that the facts of the Phaltan Sugar Work Ltd. case, relied upon by the revenue, were not attracted. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the grounds related to the reduction of addition on bogus purchases, but the overall dismissal of the revenue's appeal implies that the CIT(A)'s decision on this aspect was also upheld. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee challenged the additions but was non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
The CIT(A) granted relief for April to June 2016 but directed payment of interest under section 234B from July 2016. The Tribunal, considering Explanation (2A)(a) of section 234B, held that interest is leviable for the month of July as the circular was published within that month, making the interest correct.
The corrigendum corrects a typographical error in the original order. Specifically, it rectifies an amount mentioned in paragraphs 10 and 20 of the order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals for hearing, finding that the ex-parte orders were passed due to the assessee not responding to notices. However, a cost of Rs. 2000 was imposed on the assessee for not providing proper reasons for non-appearance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals for hearing, finding that the ex-parte orders were passed due to the assessee not responding to notices. However, a cost of Rs. 2000 was imposed on the assessee for not providing proper reasons for non-appearance.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the annual value of the property to the actual rent received and to treat service charges as income from business. However, the disallowance of expenses related to service income was remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that Section 43CA is not applicable as the agreements for sale transferred only the rights to the flats under construction, not the property itself. A separate deed of conveyance would be executed after completion. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had challenged the additions before the lower authorities but was non-compliant. Even before the Tribunal, the assessee did not furnish details. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all necessary documentation for the sale of shares and the transactions were conducted through banking channels. The Tribunal also referred to a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving the same shares and assessment year, where the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal found that the addition for the sale of KDJ Holiday Ltd shares and the purchase of SRK Industries Ltd shares was liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the average value of investments for Rule 8D should consider only investments yielding exempt income. It was also held that no disallowance of interest expenditure is required if own funds exceed investments. Further, disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added to the net profit for computing book profit under Section 115JB.