Loading ITAT cases…
657 orders · Page 12 of 14
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted due verification regarding the interest expenditure claim, and the CIT's revision proceedings were initiated on flimsy grounds. However, regarding the ALV for the vacant Cresset property, the Tribunal found that the AO had accepted NIL ALV without proper verification and examination of applicable law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not at fault for the one-day delay in depositing the employees' contribution to the provident fund. The delay was caused by technical issues with the EPFO portal, which prevented the assessee from uploading the challan on the due date. Evidence in the form of screenshots was provided to support this claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessee society does not fall under the definition of a co-operative bank or primary co-operative bank as its principal business is not banking and its membership is restricted. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring several issues to the Assessing Officer for verification. It held that the assessee should be treated as a cooperative society and not a bank, and that the deduction under Section 80P should be considered in light of this.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a frequent visitor to India, might have kept cash for expenses. While large withdrawals of Rs. 5,00,000/- were considered partly explained, a portion of smaller withdrawals (Rs. 1,00,000/-) was also presumed to be available as cash balance. Therefore, a total of Rs. 6,00,000/- was considered explained.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. held that notices issued under section 148 after 31st March 2021 are barred by limitation, as the extended time provided by TOLA does not permit issuance beyond the erstwhile provisions' timelines. Consequently, the notice issued in this case was also held to be barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals being barred by limitation. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and examined the record, noting that the reasons for delay cited by the assessee, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, were sufficient. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's suo motu order in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, and also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal found that the delay of 1390 days, 1010 days, 437 days, and 137 days for AY 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, respectively, was sufficiently explained by the pandemic's effects. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the cases were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(A) within 90 days of the order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals being barred by limitation. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and examined the record, noting that the reasons for delay cited by the assessee, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, were sufficient. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's suo motu order in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, and also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal found that the delay of 1390 days, 1010 days, 437 days, and 137 days for AY 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, respectively, was sufficiently explained by the pandemic's effects. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the cases were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(A) within 90 days of the order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals being barred by limitation. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and examined the record, noting that the reasons for delay cited by the assessee, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, were sufficient. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's suo motu order in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, and also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal found that the delay of 1390 days, 1010 days, 437 days, and 137 days for AY 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, respectively, was sufficiently explained by the pandemic's effects. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the cases were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(A) within 90 days of the order.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC order was passed ex-parte, violating the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the NFAC for fresh consideration.
Following the decisions of the Madras High Court and a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, the interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding no direct evidence or nexus linking the assessee to the alleged transaction or the digital evidence.
The Tribunal held that while the entire cash deposit might not be fully explained, the transactions originated from the assessee's business. Therefore, the AO was directed to apply a net profit of 8% on the cash deposit, confirming an addition of Rs. 4,20,000/- and deleting the balance.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-responsive conduct during assessment and appellate proceedings. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to provide a last opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices from the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) despite opportunities. This irresponsive conduct led to the ex-parte order. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to grant a last opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative, refraining from seeking adjournments except for compelling reasons. The CIT(A) was also directed to ensure the observance of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed on these terms, setting aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and the penalty order of the Assessing Officer.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. However, for the interest of justice and fair play, the tribunal decided to grant a last opportunity to the assessee and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Assessing Officer added the entire amount of purchases as income under section 69C. The CIT(A), relying on a High Court decision, restricted the addition to the profit element, estimated at 12.5% of the bogus purchases, resulting in an addition of Rs. 11,76,965/-.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not prohibited from directing the AO to verify factual aspects, especially when the additions originated from the 143(1) intimation and were not part of the original scrutiny assessment issues. The CIT(A)'s order was considered to be allowing the appeal subject to verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, acting as a representative assessee, is eligible for passing through taxation and should be allowed credit for TDS and advance tax as claimed. The lower authorities erred in directing verification of these credits in the hands of beneficiaries and in not directing deletion of interest under sections 234B and 234C.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) adopted a hyper-technical approach in dismissing the appeal due to delay. The right of appeal under Section 248 is a statutory right that should not be denied on technical grounds unless there is inordinate delay or gross negligence. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments in Sesh Nath Singh & Anr. vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. and Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through LRS. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., emphasizing that condonation of delay should be the rule and refusal an exception when no negligence or want of bonafides can be imputed. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the medical condition of the Chartered Accountant. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after considering the material on record. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(A) within 90 days of the order. The issue regarding the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was not decided on merits, as the appeal was remanded.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. It found that the case was not one where two views were possible, but rather a situation where the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries and verifications to determine the correct income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was selected for scrutiny under CASS precisely on grounds requiring such examination. The failure of the AO to make these inquiries resulted in excess allowance of expenses and under-assessment of income, making the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases like "Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd." and "M/s. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd.", emphasizing that a loss of tax lawfully payable due to an erroneous order is prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The Tribunal found that the PCIT correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the order of the PCIT was upheld.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was admittedly a conduit for providing accommodation entries, and its director had accepted involvement. The CIT(A) had rightly assessed only the commission income at 1.25% in the hands of the assessee, considering the addition made to the director for commission. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not issue notice to the assessee to examine the purpose of cash withdrawals and the nature of expenditure. Additional evidence submitted by the assessee was admitted. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the fact that the assessee had filed an undertaking on 15.05.2024 to fully cooperate with the AO during set-aside assessment proceedings and provide necessary documentary evidence related to sales order procurement in support of its claim for deduction of sales commission of Rs. 8,84,111/- for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal held that the end of justice requires that the assessee be given an opportunity to submit all necessary documents/evidence in support of its case. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was restored to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to allow the assessee to file the requisite evidence or documents within 30 days from the date of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal noted that the issue of TDS deduction and the documents provided to the AO were part of the grounds raised but did not make specific findings on these points as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including contract notes, demat statements, and BSE confirmation, to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO had not commented on this evidence and relied solely on general investigation findings without specific adverse observations against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not eligible for the 22% tax rate under Section 115BAA due to the non-filing of Form 10-IC. However, it found merit in the assessee's alternate plea that a 25% tax rate is applicable based on its total turnover of Rs. 103.57 crores for FY 2019-20, as per the Finance Act, 2020.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted on the stock exchange through registered brokers, with payments made via banking channels and STT paid. The Tribunal found no perversity in the assessee's documentation and no allegations of price rigging against the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the 'off market' sale lacked commercial substance and was primarily designed for tax evasion, not genuine tax planning. The substance of the transaction, rather than its form, was determinative.
The Tribunal decided all three appeals against the assessee. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish details regarding the transport of goods and did not point out any error in the CIT(A)'s order, thus upholding the addition of Rs. 4,07,597/-. For the second issue, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly approved the AO's conclusion that the money received from Mr. Vora's bank account belonged to the assessee itself, affirming the addition. The Tribunal did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order on this point. The judgment does not explicitly detail the Tribunal's finding on the third issue concerning interest income and unsecured advances, but the operative part of the order dismisses the appeal, implying the CIT(A)'s decision on this point was also upheld. The appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted on the stock exchange through registered brokers, with payments made via banking channels and STT paid. The Tribunal found no perversity in the assessee's documentation and no allegations of price rigging against the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of raw material purchases from bogus entities, finding the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence. The addition related to cash deposits was also affirmed as the assessee could not establish the source or rotation of funds.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of purchases from bogus entities as unexplained expenditure. It also confirmed additions related to cash deposits linked to the assessee, finding the transactions dubious and indicative of unaccounted cash.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices from the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Furthermore, the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period without any application for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were not precise on which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty was levied (concealment vs. inaccurate particulars). It is a settled proposition of law that the assessee must be aware of the specific ground for penalty initiation. The notice was issued for one limb, but the penalty was levied for another, which is not in accordance with Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It was held that the case was not decided on merits by the lower authorities due to the assessee's inability to comply with notices.
The Tribunal found that a coordinate bench in a similar case had directed that disallowance be restricted to 12.5% of bogus purchases, reduced by the declared gross profit rate. If the declared gross profit rate exceeded 12.5%, no disallowance was warranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer for non-filing of material information due to personal problems and that additional evidence filed in appellate proceedings was crucial. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the issue of unsecured loans and restored it to the AO for fresh examination. Regarding the interest expenditure, the Tribunal found that the AO's action was not tenable and directed the AO to delete the disallowance.
The tribunal held that since the liquidation process has been initiated, and there is a bar on initiating or continuing legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during moratorium, including income tax proceedings, it is premature to decide the appeals on merits. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty to restitute the appeal later.
The Tribunal held that Section 70(2) of the Income Tax Act does not restrict the set-off of short-term capital losses against short-term capital gains taxed at different rates. The assessee is allowed to set off losses against gains in a manner beneficial to them.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and taken a plausible view. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be without substance, as the assessee had either properly disclosed information or disallowed the provisions themselves.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to set-off the brought forward business losses against the enhanced income in the reassessment. It found that the Rs. 85 lakhs characterized by the CIT(A) as interest income was, in fact, consultancy income and thus business income, as evidenced by the profit and loss account and Form 26AS. Since the brought forward losses were previously determined and not a fresh claim, and the assessee had business income, the conditions for set-off were met. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the benefit of set-off for these losses.
The tribunal held that since the liquidation process has been initiated, and there is a bar on initiating or continuing legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during moratorium, including income tax proceedings, it is premature to decide the appeals on merits. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty to restitute the appeal later.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing that the AO's relied-upon decision was reversed by the Supreme Court and referencing other decisions. The Tribunal, following its own previous decision in the assessee's case for an earlier year, held that the AO's addition was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and that the profit margins needed to be considered in light of the cost of land provided by the government. It also referred to previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that an opportunity for a fresh adjudication on merits should be granted to the assessee before the CIT(A) due to the incorrect service of notices.
The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities did not deny that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year. However, they held that earning exempt income was irrelevant for disallowing expenses under Section 14A. The Tribunal, following precedents, held that disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot be made in the absence of any exempt income.
The tribunal held that since the liquidation process has been initiated, and there is a bar on initiating or continuing legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during moratorium, including income tax proceedings, it is premature to decide the appeals on merits. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty to restitute the appeal later.
The tribunal held that since the liquidation process has been initiated, and there is a bar on initiating or continuing legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during moratorium, including income tax proceedings, it is premature to decide the appeals on merits. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed in limine, with liberty to restitute the appeal later.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal also found the reassessment proceedings to be invalid.
The CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the AO, primarily due to the assessee's lack of compliance and failure to provide proper opportunity of being heard. However, the Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, decided to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case.