Loading ITAT cases…
657 orders · Page 1 of 14
The Tribunal deleted the penalty in its entirety. For additions where quantum proceedings were restored to the AO (insurance claim, R&D expenditure, and depreciation), the penalty cannot survive as its basis is unsettled. For the compensation received, the Tribunal ruled that since the assessee had disclosed all relevant particulars and the dispute pertained to the characterization of income (capital gain vs. business income), penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted, relying on precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the appellant's submissions and evidence regarding the delivery of goods and warehousing charges. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the Gross Profit (GP) rate of 14.24% on the alleged bogus purchases, finding no reason to interfere with this finding.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had initially applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme but failed to deposit the full tax due to financial constraints. The Tribunal also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not issued a hearing notice, and the assessee's non-compliance during the Covid-19 pandemic led to issues. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had inadvertently filed two simultaneous appeals challenging the same order. One of these appeals had already been decided by the Tribunal, setting aside the impugned order. Therefore, the current appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observation regarding the valuation reports was not specific and lacked reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the valuation reports were exhaustive and considered various factors. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-examination of the valuation reports and to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that if a co-operative bank is not functioning as a banking business as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, interest income earned from it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the nature of the co-operative banks.
The Tribunal held that the AO's method of adjusting refunds was incorrect. Following judicial precedents, it directed the AO to compute interest under Section 244A by first adjusting the interest component and then the tax component.
The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and noted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the CIT(A). Consequently, the impugned ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which governs the admission of additional evidence by appellate authorities. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order of the NFAC did not mention anything about the additional evidence placed on record by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the non-consideration of additional evidence submitted before the NFAC resulted in a miscarriage of justice, as the assessee has a right to an opportunity to present relevant evidence if sufficient cause is shown for not producing it before the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the NFAC. The NFAC is directed to adjudicate the prayer for additional evidence as per law and decide the matter afresh. The assessee is given 60 days from the order to submit an application for additional evidence with sufficient cause, if not already filed, or to submit necessary supporting documents. The impugned order of the NFAC is set aside. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the disallowances raised in grounds 3.1 to 3.4, as the primary issue was the procedural lapse regarding additional evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to reject the Section 80G application, confirming that such registration requires prior registration under Section 12A or 10(23C). However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal with liberty, allowing the assessee to file a fresh Section 80G application once they secure the necessary Section 12A or 10(23C) registration.
The Tribunal observed that the Joitabhai Trust acknowledged the debt of Rs. 5.34 crores to the assessee as of April 1, 2011, and the transactions of repayment and receipt of money were duly recorded in the books of accounts. Realisation of an outstanding amount cannot be characterised as income. Similarly, the receipt from the proprietary concern was considered a receipt of the assessee's own money.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections by a speaking order, which is a mandatory procedural requirement. Consequently, the assessment order and the additions made were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that in cases of bogus purchases, the addition should be restricted to the extent of benefit obtained by the assessee, such as cash discount. However, it also highlighted the need to examine the availability of unexplained cash for such purchases, which the CIT(A) had not done.
The Tribunal considered that the current appeal was a duplicate of an already filed online appeal. The assessee was allowed to withdraw the present appeal, with the liberty to continue with the previously filed online appeal as prayed.
The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(c) to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. For Section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal held that deduction is allowable if the co-operative bank does not conduct banking business as defined under Section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, and restored the issue to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the orders of the co-ordinate benches in similar cases, allowed the appeals of the assessee. Regarding the delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal noted that the assessee, being a co-operative housing society, had filed a rectification application under section 154 and was under a bonafide belief that the issue would be resolved. The delay in the disposal of this application contributed to the delay in filing the first appeal. Therefore, the delay was condoned. On merits, the Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under section 143(1) treating interest from co-operative banks as income from other sources by disallowing the claim under section 80P(2)(d) was beyond the scope of adjustments permissible under section 143(1)(a) prior to Assessment Year 2021-22. The judgment cited that prior to Finance Act, 2021, prima facie adjustments were permissible only for specific deductions like 10AA, 80IA, etc., and not for Chapter VI-A deductions like 80P. Furthermore, the assessee had filed its return within the due date as per the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies’ Act, 1960. Consequently, the adjustment made by the CPC was deleted. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly considered all the details submitted by the assessee, particularly those submitted on 12.01.2024. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the Gross Profit (GP) rate of 14.24% on the alleged bogus purchases, finding no reason to interfere with this finding.
The Tribunal noted the Assessee's non-compliance and the consequent affirmation of the addition and reopening by the lower authorities. Despite this, considering the facts and for substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case.
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for non-compliance, including personal circumstances and issues with email communication regarding notices, to be genuine and unintentional. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner issued notices to an incorrect email address despite the assessee's explicit instruction not to send communications via email.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the additions, collapsing the foundation for the penalty. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of purchases from M/s. Flyjoy Distributors Pvt. Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 1,86,10,691/- is confirmed to be restricted to the GP rate of 14.24%, amounting to Rs. 26,50,162/-. The assessee is granted relief for the balance amount of Rs. 1,59,60,529/-. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s meritorious finding in this respect. The ratio decidendi is that when an addition is made for alleged bogus purchases, and the assessee provides evidence of work completion and utilization of such purchases, and the AO has not contradicted it, the disallowance should be restricted to the GP rate earned on the contract work. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, partly allowing the assessee's appeal and dismissing the revenue's appeal on this specific issue. The judgment also mentions that the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 3111/Mum/2023 is dismissed, and the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 3103/Mum/2023 is allowed, without detailing the specific reasons for these outcomes in the provided excerpt.
The assessee sought to withdraw the present appeal as it was found to be a duplicate filing. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the Gross Profit (GP) rate of 14.24% on the alleged bogus purchases, finding no reason to interfere with this finding.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to ascertain the status of the assessee's application for condonation of delay and to decide the claim for exemption under Section 11 after considering the Commissioner's decision on the condonation application.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from investments in cooperative banks. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and the principle of adopting a construction favoring the assessee when there are divergent views.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153C were not based on any incriminating material found or seized during the search proceedings. The satisfaction note lacked specific details connecting the seized material to the impugned additions for the relevant assessment years.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153C were not based on incriminating material found during the search, and that the satisfaction note was not properly drawn. Consequently, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that in cases of bogus purchases, the addition should be restricted to the extent of benefit obtained by the assessee, such as cash discount. However, it also highlighted the need to examine the availability of unexplained cash for such purchases, which the CIT(A) had not done.
The Tribunal found that the Assessee was not effectively heard on the issue of maintainability and that the order did not discuss their submissions. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity to the Assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the facts and circumstances, and his view was one of the plausible interpretations of law. The PCIT's disagreement with the Assessing Officer's view did not automatically render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the facts and circumstances, and his view was one of the plausible interpretations of law. The PCIT's disagreement with the Assessing Officer's view did not automatically render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was bonafide and condoned it. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside as it was passed in the name of a deceased assessee and without addressing the merits. The assessment order was also set aside due to insufficient time granted to the assessee and lack of proper opportunity, restoring the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if a co-operative bank is not functioning as a banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, interest income earned from it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The issue of whether the investee banks were registered under Section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that if a co-operative bank is not functioning as a banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, interest income earned from it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The issue of whether the investee banks were registered under Section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the orders of the co-ordinate benches in similar cases, allowed the appeals of the assessee. Regarding the delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal noted that the assessee, being a co-operative housing society, had filed a rectification application under section 154 and was under a bonafide belief that the issue would be resolved. The delay in the disposal of this application contributed to the delay in filing the first appeal. Therefore, the delay was condoned. On merits, the Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under section 143(1) treating interest from co-operative banks as income from other sources by disallowing the claim under section 80P(2)(d) was beyond the scope of adjustments permissible under section 143(1)(a) prior to Assessment Year 2021-22. The judgment cited that prior to Finance Act, 2021, prima facie adjustments were permissible only for specific deductions like 10AA, 80IA, etc., and not for Chapter VI-A deductions like 80P. Furthermore, the assessee had filed its return within the due date as per the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies’ Act, 1960. Consequently, the adjustment made by the CPC was deleted. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowance of the claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that the AO had previously examined the same entries in AY 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14 and made no additions. Therefore, the reopening for AY 2014-15 was based on a change of opinion, which is not legally tenable. The revenue failed to demonstrate that these entries were new or unrelated to the previous years.
The Tribunal noted the Assessee's non-compliance but also observed that the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner decided the appeal ex-parte without properly considering the issue. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the Assessee.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form No. 10 was due to reasonable cause (technical glitches) and that the issue of exemption under Section 11(2) was debatable, thus not suitable for summary disallowance under Section 143(1). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer after allowing the assessee to seek condonation of delay.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not furnished relevant documents to support their claims before the lower authorities. For the addition under section 2(22)(e), the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present documents, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring it for fresh adjudication. For the addition under section 14A, the Tribunal also felt the issue required fresh examination by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's business was set up and commenced from June 2008 based on evidence like employee appointments and TDS filings.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act was not attracted in this case. The assessee claimed no income and a loss in the relevant year, thus no advance tax was payable. The Tribunal also noted that crucial documents supporting the assessee's claim were not before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 186 days, considering it unintentional and based on a bonafide belief. The Tribunal also noted that the lower authorities had failed to decide the appeal on merits due to a lack of adequate submissions.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the additions, collapsing the foundation for the penalty. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.
The Tribunal held that the AO's method of adjusting refunds was incorrect. Following judicial precedents, it directed the AO to compute interest under Section 244A by first adjusting the interest component and then the tax component.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from investments in cooperative banks. The Tribunal followed the principle of adopting the construction favoring the assessee when there are divergent views from High Courts.
For AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to ABN Tradelink, finding no incriminating material. For AY 2018-19, disallowances for two subcontractors (High Ground Enterprises and Oxford Infracon) were deleted as they were not in the satisfaction note. The disallowance for Great Unison Contractors and alleged bogus purchases (Flyjoy Distributors) were restricted to a 14.24% Gross Profit rate. The addition for written-off debtors/balances was sustained as the assessee could not corroborate the claim. The validity of 153C proceedings was upheld against the assessee's challenge.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding that it was delayed. However, the Tribunal found that the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period from the date of service of the assessment order. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions and documents filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the Assessee's non-compliance but noted that the FAA also failed to decide the issue on merit. To ensure a just decision and substantial justice, the case is remanded to the AO for a fresh decision, allowing the Assessee a reasonable opportunity to substantiate their claim.