Loading ITAT cases…
657 orders · Page 8 of 14
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for non-appearance and adjournment requests to be probable and reasonable, noting the ITBA window closure prevented document submission. Therefore, the Commissioner erred in deciding ex-parte without considering merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders dated 29.03.2022 had been quashed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Department's counsel conceded to this finding. Consequently, the orders for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were quashed and the order for AY 2016-17 became redundant.
The Tribunal held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for reassessment was bad in law. The notice was issued by the JAO and not the Faceless Assessment Officer as required, and it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN). Furthermore, the reassessment was based on a change of opinion without any new material, as the issue of bogus purchases had already been examined and partially added in the original assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders dated 29.03.2022 had been quashed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Department's counsel conceded to this finding. Consequently, the orders for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were quashed and the order for AY 2016-17 became redundant.
The Tribunal perused the transactions and noted that the impugned transactions were already part of the income declared by the assessee, specifically arising from Spot Arbitrage. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the addition made by the AO was already included in the total declared income.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, being a senior citizen, was genuinely pursuing an alternate remedy. The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for income earned from investments in co-operative banks. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and other ITAT rulings.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee fulfilled all conditions for the concessional tax rate under Section 115BAA except for filing Form No. 10IC. Citing the principle of beneficial interpretation and lenient views on procedural lapses, the Tribunal noted that the procedural requirement of filing the form should not override the substantive benefit. The Tribunal also found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard before the intimation order was passed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by filing documentary evidence, including creditor confirmations, IT returns, bank statements, and financial accounts. The lower authorities' inquiries were deemed insufficient, and the AO failed to file a remand report when requested by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted the assessee had paid interest and deducted TDS, contradicting the 'interest-free loan' finding. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO proceeded on erroneous facts. While the Investigation Wing's observations might be correct, they could not be applied to this case. Considering the assessee's returned income and the negligible short-term capital loss, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.
The Tribunal held that the variance between the purchase price and stamp duty valuation was within the tolerance limit of 10% (considering retrospective application of the benefit). The revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof that a higher sale consideration was paid. Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the CIT(A), and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for disposal. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) confirmed Section 50C, it directed the AO to allow indexed cost of acquisition. The Tribunal found that the assessees failed to file submissions before the CIT(A) due to email issues and decided to remit the matter back in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the CIT(A), and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for disposal. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) confirmed Section 50C, it directed the AO to allow indexed cost of acquisition. The Tribunal found that the assessees failed to file submissions before the CIT(A) due to email issues and decided to remit the matter back in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal noted that the cause title of the appeal was not filled correctly and Form No. 36 was not signed by the AO. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on these procedural grounds, with liberty granted to the Revenue to file a fresh appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 70,91,351, as the sales made to Mr. Dhanraj G. Parmar were recorded in the profit and loss account, supported by banking channel payments, and declared as revenue receipts. Similarly, the deletion of the addition of Rs. 48,98,152 was upheld, considering the demonetization announcement on November 8, 2016, which led to an exceptional day of cash sales for gold as a safe investment, and the assessee's provision of supporting documents.
The Tribunal observed that the precedents relied upon by the CIT(A) were distinguishable as those assessees had furnished details, unlike the present case where no evidence was provided. The Tribunal held that unless the assessee furnishes basic evidence, profit cannot be estimated. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after the assessee provides details, books of accounts, and is given an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merit. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative.
The Tribunal held that merely because additions were made on an estimate basis, it does not automatically imply concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that the AO had not sufficiently established concealment of income, and therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that in identical circumstances, where the assessee has furnished primary evidence, Courts have estimated the profit on alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, which, in turn, referred to an earlier decision where the Tribunal had reduced disallowance to 6% of impugned purchases, considering the assessee's declared Gross Profit rate and the principle that tax authorities should tax only the income component. The Tribunal also cited the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Goenka Jewellers vs. CIT. Observing that the CIT(A)'s decisions were supported by judicial precedents and considering the facts in totality, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s finding that the addition should be restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the principle of estimating profit on alleged bogus purchases when primary evidence is furnished. It referred to a Gujarat High Court decision that supports estimating profit in such circumstances.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P in the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) was not tenable for AY 2019-20. This was because the specific amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) allowing such denial for Chapter VI-A deductions due to belated filing was effective only from April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal noted that the AO intended to make an addition of 1% but made an addition of 10%, which was 10 times higher than initially proposed. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee claimed losses and did not submit any details of the transactions or profit/loss earned.
The Tribunal held that merely because additions were made on an estimate basis, it does not automatically imply concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that the AO had not sufficiently established concealment of income, and therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not received crucial notices and documents from the AO, including the reasons for reassessment and approval. The AO also erred by considering the entire sale consideration as capital gain without allowing for cost of acquisition and indexation. Furthermore, notices from the CIT(A) were sent to a wrong email address, causing the assessee to miss opportunities to respond.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had responded to the notices and, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the ex-parte order. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's decision to affirm the addition of Rs.16,39,719/- was based on the Assessee's failure to submit details during assessment proceedings, treating them as additional evidence. Regarding the second addition of Rs.1,23,17,539/-, the Commissioner reduced it to 10% and directed the AO to verify expenses.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied solely on a generalized report without independent examination and denied the assessee's request for cross-examination. The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decisions, which emphasized the genuineness of transactions conducted through stock exchanges with proper documentation.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was without jurisdiction because the required sanction from the Pr. CCIT was not obtained for reopening beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment order was rendered null and void.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had entered into an international transaction, thus the due date for filing the return of income was November 30th as per Section 92E of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the apprehension of the PCIT regarding the set-off of losses was premature, as such claims would be made in subsequent assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee demonstrated casual behavior by not pursuing the appeals effectively and not providing explanations for the claims. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal as not admitted due to the delay and lack of sufficient cause. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' observations.
Following a consistent line of decisions by co-ordinate benches, including The Navyug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Tribunal held that interest income derived by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The AO was directed to allow the deduction. The Tribunal also levied a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal on the assessee due to their delinquency before lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Following previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Courts, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's conduct was negligent but considered the assessee's circumstances and the failure of the Ld. Commissioner to decide on merits. The Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case and additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was passed against a non-existent entity, rendering it void. The Tribunal also noted that the PCIT did not apply its mind independently.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and examined the issue with supporting evidence. The Tribunal also noted that even if the deduction was not allowed under Section 24B, it would be allowable under Sections 36/37, thus causing no prejudice to revenue.
The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error and agreed to issue a corrigendum. The original order's contents are to remain un-amended, with this corrigendum being read as part of the original order.
The Tribunal held that merely because additions were made on an estimate basis, it does not automatically imply concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that the AO had not sufficiently established concealment of income, and therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Totagar's case was distinguishable as it dealt with Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, whereas the present claim is under Section 80P(2)(d), which uses the expression "any income". The Tribunal further noted that various judicial pronouncements support the view that interest income earned by a cooperative society from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The tribunal also allowed the claim for an ad-hoc deduction of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii).
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were bad in law due to a defective notice, citing the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT. The notices were found to be omnibus, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty order itself also exhibited ambiguity.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had honored the declaration made during the survey by offering the income in subsequent years, which were accepted by the Revenue. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's addition of the entire amount in the current year was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing purchase bills, bank statements, and demat account statements. It was observed that the transaction was through a recognized stock exchange, and the company M/s. Karma Industries Ltd. still exists. The Tribunal relied on a High Court judgment with similar facts where similar additions were deleted.
The Tribunal found that there was a dispute regarding the exact information available during the first reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to verify the reasons recorded for the first reassessment from the AO's records and then decide the validity of the reassessment and the addition on merit.
The CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits, irrespective of the assessee's appearance or submissions. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and restored for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had suo motu disallowed some interest, the calculation and justification were lacking. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw appeals for AY 2014-15 and 2017-18 as the reassessment proceedings were quashed. For AY 2018-19, the issue of weighted deduction was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding substantial justice over technicalities. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw appeals for AY 2014-15 and 2017-18 as the reassessment proceedings were quashed. For AY 2018-19, the issue of weighted deduction was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw appeals for AY 2014-15 and 2017-18 as the reassessment proceedings were quashed. For AY 2018-19, the issue of weighted deduction was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw appeals for AY 2014-15 and 2017-18 as the reassessment proceedings were quashed. For AY 2018-19, the issue of weighted deduction was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention that the 'Limited Scrutiny' limited the scope of examination of the source of funds was baseless. However, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for re-verification of whether the money used for property payments substantially originated from M/s. Tanya Vincom Pvt. Ltd. The AO was directed to prepare a fund flow chart and provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard.