Loading ITAT cases…
412 orders · Page 8 of 9
The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly assumed that the assessee had not filed submissions for the current assessment year (AY 2018-19) but had instead filed for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal found this observation to be factually incorrect and contrary to the material on record. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal observed that the impugned order by the CIT(A) was passed ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits of the case. The Tribunal found the order perverse as it lacked reasons for dismissal and proper service of notices was not established.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable only when sums are found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee. Since the assessee had not maintained any books of account, Section 68 was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the immovable property was jointly purchased and the payment was made by Arun Patil, who was a co-owner. The nature and source of payment were satisfactorily explained by the assessee, and the AO did not question the genuineness of the loan. Similarly, for the car purchase, the ultimate source of funds was admitted to be from Arun Patil, and the transaction was treated as a loan and not an unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal also noted that Section 56(2) was not discussed by the lower authorities and revenue cannot raise a new plea.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided evidence, including member statements and KYC documents, to substantiate the cash deposits. The Tribunal opined that the assessee should not suffer for non-filing of material information if the evidence played a vital role. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice and principles of natural justice, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal, on perusal of records and considering the assessee's request, directed that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. The appeal filed by the assessee was consequently dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The CIT(A) found that the AO's addition was based on a typographical error in the trust's financial statements regarding investment schedules, and the trust had indeed made sufficient investments.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not heard by the CIT(A) before the ex-parte order was passed, despite the assessee's reasons for not explaining their case. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration after providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was in the business of supplying labor for waste collection and had submitted additional evidence before the CIT(A) and AO regarding the source of deposits as business receipts. However, these details were not considered by the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to represent its case.
The Tribunal observed that once a liquidation order is made or an official liquidator is appointed, no legal proceedings can be commenced or continued against the company without the court's permission, as per Section 446 of the Companies Act and Section 33(5) of the IBC. The tax demand from the AO's orders was not part of the stakeholder list as of January 22, 2024, and thus could not be recovered.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea for an opportunity to make submissions and the Revenue's support for remitting the matter. Considering the conduct of the assessee and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that once a liquidation order is made or an official liquidator is appointed, no legal proceedings can be commenced or continued against the company without the court's permission, as per Section 446 of the Companies Act and Section 33(5) of the IBC. The tax demand from the AO's orders was not part of the stakeholder list as of January 22, 2024, and thus could not be recovered.
The Tribunal observed that once a liquidation order is made or an official liquidator is appointed, no legal proceedings can be commenced or continued against the company without the court's permission, as per Section 446 of the Companies Act and Section 33(5) of the IBC. The tax demand from the AO's orders was not part of the stakeholder list as of January 22, 2024, and thus could not be recovered.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure disallowed under Section 37(1) can still be allowed as a deduction under Section 80G if the conditions for Section 80G are met. The AO's assessment, which allowed the deduction after due inquiry, was considered a possible view and not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of purchases and failed to produce the parties for verification. Independent inquiries made by the AO were also unserved. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared a gross profit of 25.10%.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO failed to establish that the particulars supplied by the assessee were inaccurate or erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of the trust's registration under section 12A should be effective from March 20, 2015, meaning the trust lost its status as a registered trust. Therefore, tax, surcharge, and cess should be calculated at slab rates and prevailing rates, respectively.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-cooperative and did not provide sufficient cause for the delay or non-payment of admitted tax. However, it found that a reasonable opportunity for hearing was denied. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction to condone the delay.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of purchases and failed to produce the parties for verification. Independent inquiries made by the AO were also unserved. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared a gross profit of 25.10%.
The Tribunal held that while a moratorium bars the enforcement of an order (recovery of tax), it does not bar the making of an assessment itself. This view is supported by NCLAT's decision in Mohan Lal Jain vs ITO.
The tribunal set aside the order regarding the loan of Rs. 40.00 lakhs from Shri Atul Mawani to the AO for fresh examination. The tribunal directed the AO to allow interest expenditure of Rs. 4,20,000/- relating to the loan from Shri Vijay Chheda and to delete the disallowance of Rs. 60,833/- paid to Shri Kamlesh Madhusudan.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without fully considering the assessee's grounds. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000/-. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without fully considering the assessee's grounds. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000/-. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO failed to establish that the particulars supplied by the assessee were inaccurate or erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the amendment increasing the tolerance limit for the difference between stamp duty value and consideration to 10% under Section 56(2)(x) is clarificatory/curative and applies retrospectively. Since the difference was less than 10% of the consideration, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases from the suppliers, the usage of materials for real estate development was not doubted. Therefore, a reasonable disallowance to meet the possibility of revenue leakage was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in default after the assessee failed to appear on multiple occasions despite notices. However, considering the principles of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) was expected to state points for determination and reasons for the decision as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Although the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) on four occasions, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merit. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative, and to refrain from seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that the basis of reopening, which was the direction of the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10, was set aside by the ITAT. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this direction were considered void ab initio and the appeal infructuous. The assessment order making an addition of INR 1 Crore was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the terminal illness of the assessee's father-in-law. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to respond to notices, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned order and assessment order. The matter was remitted back to the assessing officer for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-cooperative and did not provide sufficient cause for the delay or non-payment of admitted tax. However, it found that a reasonable opportunity for hearing was denied. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction to condone the delay.
The Tribunal held that for maintenance expenses, since the assessee followed the mercantile system, actual payment not being proved was not a reason for disallowance, and the AO was directed to delete the disallowance. For motorcar expenses, due to the lack of log books, it was presumed that some expenses might not be for business purposes, and therefore, the CIT(A)'s confirmation of 10% disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with all the conditions stipulated in Section 47(xiv) of the Act. Therefore, the transfer was not to be considered a taxable 'transfer' under the Act, and the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that if a property is accepted as self-occupied, its Annual Letting Value must be taken as NIL as per Section 23(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The principle of 'no estoppel against law' applies, and a software error in showing ALV does not entitle the assessing officer to tax it, especially when no actual receipt is proven.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-cooperative and did not provide sufficient cause for the delay or non-payment of admitted tax. However, it found that a reasonable opportunity for hearing was denied. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction to condone the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-cooperative and did not provide sufficient cause for the delay or non-payment of admitted tax. However, it found that a reasonable opportunity for hearing was denied. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with a direction to condone the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. The grounds related to the reopening of assessment were dismissed as not pressed. The grounds concerning additions under Section 68 were partly allowed, directing the AO to consider 0.25% as the net profit rate/commission.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal and condoned it. It noted that the assessee claimed lack of proper opportunity from lower authorities. Considering the facts and interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a 'change of opinion' and borrowed satisfaction without independent inquiry. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documents, and the revenue authorities failed to bring any contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also found that the addition under Section 69A for demonetization deposits was correctly deleted by the CIT(A) as the source was explained. The Tribunal followed coordinate benches and Supreme Court decisions regarding the interpretation of Section 80P(4).
The CIT(A) allowed the issue on merits, holding that the debts were actual bad debts written off as per Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, not a provision or contingent liability. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO incorrectly disallowed the entire claim based on limited data and that the transactions were inter-branch transfers or old debts written off.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions. For purchases, the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence and payments were made through account payee cheques. For sub-contracting, the Tribunal found the AO's allegations of back-to-back contracts to be factually incorrect and that the assessee had substantiated the expenses with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the Bombay High Court had quashed the Section 148 notice on the grounds of limitation. Since the reassessment notice was quashed, the additions made during the reassessment proceedings were not valid. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to prove the genuineness of the impugned purchases. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide them afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to furnish all necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from deposits with co-operative banks. The issue of deductions under Section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(c) was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the assessee's grievance on merits. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO's action in reopening the case was based on erroneous facts and without proper verification, amounting to a non-application of mind. The Tribunal relied on various High Court decisions stating that "information" cannot be lightly used to reopen assessments and that Revenue cannot be given unbridled power. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the consequential final assessment order were deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the co-ordinate bench had deleted the addition made by the AO. Consequently, the penalty order passed by the AO was no longer sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits and had merely reproduced the grounds of appeal, confirming the AO's additions. Considering the need for natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not consider all the details submitted by the assessee and failed to consider the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT(E) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority regarding charitable activities. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.