Loading ITAT cases…
577 orders · Page 12 of 12
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were ad-hoc disallowances of expenses, not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, these additions were beyond the scope of Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable on additions made on an estimated basis. Reliance was placed on various High Court decisions and a coordinate bench ruling that stated penalty cannot be levied without concrete evidence of concealment.
The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2019, which clarified that the amendment inserting 'or set off of any loss' in Section 115BBE(2) was effective from 01.04.2017. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2017-18, set off of losses against income under Section 115BBE was permissible.
The Tribunal held that the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and therefore, it is proper to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to explain the difference between the stamp value and the sale consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) due to non-compliance. Therefore, to adhere to the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to comply without delay.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the revenue were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case and in similar cases. Specifically, the treatment of surplus from the shareholder's account and the applicability of Section 14A were decided in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were ad-hoc disallowances of expenses, not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, these additions were beyond the scope of Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were ad-hoc disallowances of expenses, not based on any incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, these additions were beyond the scope of Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that the perpetual debentures, in this case, had a call option for redemption after 10 years, indicating an intention for repayment. Therefore, they were considered a form of borrowing, and the interest paid was deductible as a business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's personal and economic ties were closer to India, making him a resident of India under the India-USA DTAA. Consequently, his US-sourced income was taxable in India.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay of 101 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A). Considering the circumstances, including the pandemic and portal issues, the Tribunal deemed it just and proper to condone the delay in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal noted that while the lower authorities' conclusion that no prudent businessman would transfer the entire contract receipts without profit was valid, the estimation of income at 8% was ad-hoc and lacked legal sanctity. The Tribunal observed that Section 40A(2) of the Act should be followed in such cases.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in contravention of Section 151 of the Act, as the sanction of the specified authority was not obtained in accordance with the law prevalent at the time. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 was deemed void ab initio and bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case falls under the ambit of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as the additions confirmed by the appellate authorities indicated concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order in default of the assessee, who had failed to respond to notices for hearings on 03.04.2024, 23.04.2024, 14.05.2024, and 27.05.2024. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order lacked reasons, indicating a non-application of mind and absence of critical analysis or objective consideration, which is contrary to the requirement under Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that reason is the life of law and its absence mummifies the spirit of the order. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits and to pass a speaking order. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in future hearings. The Tribunal made no observations on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed on these terms.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits and that there were issues related to natural justice and jurisdictional tests. The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity for hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 107 days in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. It noted that the assessee did not respond to various notices issued by the first appellate authority, which led to the ex-parte order. However, the Tribunal also observed that the impugned order lacked reasons. In 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 file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative in attending hearings and making submissions, refraining from seeking adjournments except for compelling and unavoidable reasons. The learned CIT(A) was directed to ensure observance of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no observations were made regarding the merits of the case. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed ground no. 2, directing the deletion of the addition of ₹21,65,000. The Tribunal found that the loose sheets on which the addition was based did not contain the assessee's name and mentioned "Viva College" and "Vrushi Enterprises." The Tribunal noted that other seized documents mentioning the assessee related to banking channel transactions. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that various entities of the Swastik group, except the assessee, had filed an application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) which was admitted and an order was passed under section 245D(4). The assessee provided evidence, including Form 26AS, showing tax payment on additional income offered before the ITSC. The Tribunal found that the impugned addition of ₹21,65,000 was part of the cash flow statement presented to the ITSC by the Swastik group. Therefore, the Tribunal held that adding this amount to the assessee's income would amount to double taxation, which is impermissible. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. Regarding ground no. 1, concerning the reopening of assessment, the Tribunal left the issue undecided as relief was granted on merits.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the AO was not justified in reducing the assessed income below the returned income, and the capital account submitted by the assessee should be accepted. For AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the sources of the Rs. 10.00 lakh deposits, including gifts from her son and income from tuitions and household works.
The Tribunal noted that a significant portion of the delay occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, a period for which the Supreme Court had extended limitation periods. Considering the principles of substantial justice and the technical glitches in the IT portal, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to condone the remaining delay.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the AO was not justified in reducing the assessed income below the returned income, and the capital account submitted by the assessee should be accepted. For AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the sources of the Rs. 10.00 lakh deposits, including gifts from her son and income from tuitions and household works.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2011-12, the AO was not justified in reducing the assessed income below the returned income, and the capital account submitted by the assessee should be accepted. For AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the sources of the Rs. 10.00 lakh deposits, including gifts from her son and income from tuitions and household works.
The Tribunal held that the AO primarily relied on a generalized investigation report without bringing independent material to prove the assessee's involvement in price rigging. The documentary evidence furnished by the assessee for purchase and sale of shares was not doubted.
The CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the addition to 3.10% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal, following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co., found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the approval for the Section 148A(d) order was granted by the Principal Commissioner, which was not the specified authority as per Section 151(ii) for cases where more than three years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the purchases from M/s. Shashwat Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. were not genuine and potentially involved illegal means, thus hitting the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for further examination of the transaction's genuineness and delivery proofs.
The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot be sustained as the assessee claimed the deduction under a bonafide belief and had made similar claims in earlier years where no penalty was levied. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that proportionate disallowance is permissible and penalty is not automatic.