Loading ITAT cases…
657 orders · Page 5 of 14
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a senior citizen with no income chargeable under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession', is exempt from paying advance tax as per Section 207(2) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the levy of interest under Section 234C is not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had maintained separate accounts for excise duty and service tax, which, according to the guidance notes, would not be included in the turnover. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to consider the tax rate at 25% instead of 30%.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings cannot survive if the assessment order on which it is based has been set aside. Since the addition made in the assessment order for AY 2011-12 was set aside by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty levied on that basis is unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the AO relied heavily on the 'Insight Portal' without providing the data to the assessee for proper explanation. Regarding sundry creditors, the Tribunal observed that the AO had accepted the corresponding purchases. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that if purchases are accepted, additions for related sundry creditors under Section 68 are not tenable, especially when the settlement of these creditors was through sales.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not complied with notices for hearing at multiple stages, leading the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal ex-parte. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained that she had moved to Kolkata and did not receive postal communications, including the assessment order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the grounds of non-payment of advance tax, which the assessee argued was not applicable as she had no taxable income. The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh examination on merits.
The Tribunal, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohommad Haji Adam & Co., held that in cases where sales are accepted, the entire amount of bogus purchases cannot be disallowed. The addition should be restricted to the difference in gross profit margins between genuine and alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act does not prescribe a time limit for bringing export consideration into India, unlike Section 10A(3). Relying on a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal stated that deduction cannot be denied solely because the consideration was received after six months from the close of the financial year.
The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It directed the AO to delete the addition of the unsecured loan, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of the addition on account of interest income, as it was decided in favour of the assessee in prior proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was not infirm. The CIT(A) had correctly directed that the addition should be restricted to the extent of the gross profit (GP) at the rate to be applied as the GP rate declared on the genuine purchases. The reasoning was based on several jurisdictional High Court decisions. These decisions established that adding back entire purchases without questioning corresponding sales is incorrect. The principle is that if purchases are found to be bogus, only the profit element embedded therein should be treated as income, not the entire purchase value. The AO was directed to recompute the addition by applying the GP rate in accordance with the directions of the Ld. CIT(A). No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal heard the submissions of the assessee's counsel and the DR. The assessee's counsel requested the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn due to the aforementioned reasons. The DR had no objection.
The Tribunal observed that the impugned order was passed ex-parte due to the Assessee's failure to file submissions. Considering the interest of substantial justice, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits, allowing the Assessee to avail the VSVS 2024 benefit if desired.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent order under Section 148A(d) were invalid because the AO failed to obtain prior approval from the 'specified authority' as required by Section 151 of the Act. The approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner, whereas for more than three years elapsed from the end of the assessment year, approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner was required.
The Tribunal condoned a minor delay in filing the appeal. It was observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's absence. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case on merits before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. The Tribunal noted that the period of delay significantly overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, a fact acknowledged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its orders extending limitation periods. The Tribunal found the causes shown by the assessee in the affidavit, including the impact of the pandemic, communication issues, and unfamiliarity with the IT portal, to be sufficient. The Tribunal stated that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities and that parties should ordinarily have an opportunity to participate in justice dispensation. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) had wrongly refused to condone the delay. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The tribunal held that the AO was justified in reopening the assessment due to the disproportionate investment compared to the declared income. Regarding the addition related to loan creditors, the tribunal noted procedural lapses by the AO in issuing notices under section 142(1) before section 143(2) and completing the assessment rapidly. Due to these lapses and the fact that some details were provided to the CIT(A) but not the AO, the issue required fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a mistaken belief about tax liability and seeking legal advice. The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and decided to restore the matter to the file of the Addl. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer erred by applying a uniform profit margin of 22.5% to the aggregate turnover, which included the lower-margin edible oil trading business. The assessee had declared higher profit margins for both its manufacturing and trading activities, which were not disputed by the Assessing Officer for the edible oil segment.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 on a smaller issue, when a larger issue is pending before the CIT(Appeals), is unsustainable, citing the case of Smt. Renuka Philip. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessee's statement did not indicate payment of any commission for obtaining LTCG.
The Tribunal held that regular books of account maintained during the normal course of business, even if seized during a search, cannot be treated as incriminating material for framing an assessment under section 153A for an unabated assessment year. The additions made by the AO were therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the allowability of deduction on standard assets under Section 36(1)(viia) is a debatable issue. The AO had made a plausible inquiry and taken a possible view, thus the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not tenable.
The Tribunal held that the allowability of deduction for standard assets under Section 36(1)(viia) is a debatable issue, and the AO took a plausible view after inquiry. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not tenable.
The Tribunal noted the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the assessee's non-response to notices. However, it also observed that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not follow the prescribed procedure for reopening the case, as per the CBDT instructions and Supreme Court judgments. High Courts have also quashed similar notices for AY 2013-14 due to limitation issues.
The Tribunal held that penalties paid for infraction of law are not deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, regardless of whether paid directly or reimbursed. However, to provide justice, the matter was restored to the AO's file.
The Tribunal held that the core issue of whether the assessee's income is taxable at slab rates under clause (iv) of the first proviso to section 164(1) of the Act or under section 167B as an AOP at MMR requires detailed examination by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had also filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act concerning this very issue, which was pending before the AO. Considering this pendency and the need for a thorough examination of all relevant materials, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue on merits to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to consider the matter afresh after examining all necessary details and documents, and importantly, no order was to be passed without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to furnish all supporting details to the AO. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the core issue of whether the assessee's income is taxable at slab rates under clause (iv) of the first proviso to section 164(1) of the Act or under section 167B as an AOP at MMR requires detailed examination by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had also filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act concerning this very issue, which was pending before the AO. Considering this pendency and the need for a thorough examination of all relevant materials, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue on merits to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to consider the matter afresh after examining all necessary details and documents, and importantly, no order was to be passed without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to furnish all supporting details to the AO. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance before tax authorities, resulting in ex-parte assessments and appeals. To provide a fair chance, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders and restore the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to grant two more effective opportunities to the appellant to explain the facts and circumstances, and the appellant is to cooperate with the department by providing necessary particulars.
The Tribunal held that the core issue of whether the assessee's income is taxable at slab rates under clause (iv) of the first proviso to section 164(1) of the Act or under section 167B as an AOP at MMR requires detailed examination by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had also filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act concerning this very issue, which was pending before the AO. Considering this pendency and the need for a thorough examination of all relevant materials, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue on merits to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to consider the matter afresh after examining all necessary details and documents, and importantly, no order was to be passed without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to furnish all supporting details to the AO. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The CIT(A) affirmed the reopening but restricted the addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering that only the profit element should be taxed. The Tribunal, in a similar case decided by a co-ordinate bench, had restricted the disallowance to 4%. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the addition from 12.5% to 4% of the impugned purchases, deeming it fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide explanations to the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the appellant two more opportunities to submit the required details and documents. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for further proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of disallowance of employer's contribution to PF/ESIC was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Ltd. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify and restrict the disallowance to employee's contribution, ensuring no double disallowance. Grounds related to intimation under Section 143(1) were dismissed as they did not arise from the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to reopen the assessment under section 147 as the assessee failed to disclose material facts regarding rental income from unsold inventory. The issue was not previously examined by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the last order was passed over 9 years ago and no progress has been made in prosecuting the appeals. In the absence of legal heirs and their representation, the appeals cannot be further prosecuted.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance before tax authorities, resulting in ex-parte assessments and appeals. To provide a fair chance, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders and restore the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost.
The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities (AO and CIT(A)) had not properly examined the facts regarding the cash deposits and withdrawals. The AO had made assumptions without due diligence. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine all facts, including cash withdrawals, deposits, and the source of payments made to the broker, and to obtain a report from the AO.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was time-barred and issued in contravention of the provisions of section 151, as the proper specified authority did not grant the sanction. The court followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v/s DCIT, which stated that TOLA does not affect the scope of section 151 and that sanctions must be obtained according to the law existing at the time of sanction. The approval obtained was from Principal CIT-8, which is not the specified authority for cases where more than three years have elapsed. Therefore, the notice and the subsequent reassessment proceedings were considered void ab initio and bad in law.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance before tax authorities, resulting in ex-parte assessments and appeals. To provide a fair chance, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders and restore the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the appellant had submitted sufficient details and explained the discrepancies. However, the ITAT noted that the CIT(A) accepted the appellant's contentions without independent verification or calling for a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal decided to grant the appellant a further opportunity to explain its case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide two effective opportunities and consider all arguments before passing a fresh order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's investments in Tata Sons Ltd. were part of its corpus and thus fell under the exceptions to Section 13(1)(d). It also found no violation of Section 2(15) as the trust was not engaged in business activities.
The Tribunal noted that while the appellant did not furnish fresh evidence, the AO should have conducted further inquiries and obtained a remand report when directed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the issue of creditors is remitted back to the CIT(A) for obtaining a remand report from the AO and passing a speaking order.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance before tax authorities, resulting in ex-parte assessments and appeals. To provide a fair chance, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders and restore the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost.
The Tribunal found an undisputed nexus between the borrowed funds and the earning of interest income and other income from other sources. It held that if the capital was used for earning interest or strategic investment, and there's a nexus with income taxable under 'income from other sources', then the expenditure incurred for earning such income must be allowed or netted off against the interest income. The Tribunal noted that Section 14A was not invoked for disallowance and consequently allowed both grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to provide necessary documents for cost of acquisition and exemption claim. However, considering the peculiar facts, one more opportunity is granted to the appellant.
The Tribunal, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Mohommad Haji Adam & Co., held that in cases where sales are accepted, the entire amount of bogus purchases cannot be disallowed. The addition should be restricted to the difference in gross profit margins between genuine and alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the AO did not conduct proper inquiries into the income declared from the survey. The PCIT was justified in invoking revisionary powers under section 263.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's investments in Tata Sons Ltd. were part of its corpus and thus fell under the exceptions to Section 13(1)(d). It also found no violation of Section 2(15) as the trust was not engaged in business activities.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not strike off either of the two charges (concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income). Relying on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra), the penalty notice was deemed invalid and the penalty order was quashed.