Loading ITAT cases…
577 orders · Page 2 of 12
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence to the assessee regarding KDJH being a penny stock or the transactions being bogus. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions based on the material on record, which indicated genuine transactions and substantial net worth of KDJH.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). However, considering the grounds raised and the principles of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal observed that the core issue was the source of the cash deposits made during demonetization. The assessee claimed it was from consistent cash withdrawals over time from his savings account. Since bank statements were crucial and not fully produced before lower authorities, the Tribunal admitted them as additional evidence.
Both parties agreed that the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that a cooperative housing society cannot be reckoned as a cooperative bank carrying out banking business. The interest income earned by the assessee from a cooperative society bank is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, as it is derived from investments with other cooperative societies. The Tribunal distinguished this case from the Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. case, which dealt with Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 2075 days, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that the assessee's bonafides were not challenged. The Tribunal then addressed the substantive issue. While acknowledging the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal, the Tribunal noted the assessee's alternative submission regarding the gross profit percentage. The assessee had shown a gross profit of 3.65% on the disputed purchases, compared to an overall gross profit of 6.17%. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not dealt with this alternative plea. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr. CIT-17 vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co., the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the difference between the profit margin offered on genuine purchases and the profit margin offered on the disputed purchases by the assessee. This means the addition will be based on the profit element, not the entire purchase value, and specifically the difference in profit margins.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned, considering the assessee's submission of medical issues and entrustment of the appeal to a representative. The CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits, especially concerning the valuation report, so the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance throughout the proceedings. Considering the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's request for adjournment due to pending consolidation, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the AO.
The Tribunal noted that as per the first proviso to section 143 of the Act, no adjustments under section 143(1)(a) can be made without providing intimation to the assessee. Since the CPC did not follow this mandatory condition, the addition made by the CPC was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned, considering the assessee's submission of medical issues and entrustment of the appeal to a representative. The CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits, especially concerning the valuation report, so the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence to the assessee regarding KDJH being a penny stock or the transactions being bogus. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions based on the material on record, which indicated genuine transactions and substantial net worth of KDJH.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the additional ground and evidence filed by the assessee, despite the assessee providing proof of submission. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed them to decide the application afresh after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's appeal before the first appellate authority was disposed of ex-parte without granting proper opportunity, violating principles of natural justice, as notices were allegedly not received by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the company's liquidation and the lack of representation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without prejudice, allowing parties to seek recall if circumstances change.
The Tribunal noted the company's liquidation and the lack of representation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without prejudice, allowing parties to seek recall if circumstances change.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found merit in the assessee's contention that no opportunity was granted to rectify the application. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside with directions to allow the assessee to file a rectified application or consider the existing one as filed under the correct section.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found merit in the assessee's contention that no opportunity was granted to rectify the application. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside with directions to allow the assessee to file a rectified application or consider the existing one as filed under the correct section.
The Tribunal noted the company's liquidation and the lack of representation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without prejudice, allowing parties to seek recall if circumstances change.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they were deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard due to short notice periods in the faceless regime, hindering proper representation. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee to support their reconciliation statement of gross receipts.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was challenging the additions made by the AO before the first appellate authority but was non-compliant. Considering the factual matrix and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). However, considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted the company's liquidation and the lack of representation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without prejudice, allowing parties to seek recall if circumstances change.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they were deprived of a reasonable opportunity of being heard due to short notice periods in the faceless regime, hindering proper representation. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee to support their reconciliation statement of gross receipts.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not filed its return of income and claimed no taxable income, there was no obligation to pay advance tax. Consequently, Section 249(4) was not applicable.
The Tribunal found that while the DCF method was accepted for valuation, the CIT(A) correctly noted that the exemption for start-up companies under notification No. 45/2016 was not applicable for Assessment Year 2013-14. However, the Tribunal also noted that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted the company's liquidation and the lack of representation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without prejudice, allowing parties to seek recall if circumstances change.
The Tribunal held that the general ground regarding the validity of the assessment order being beyond the time limit was not adjudicated. Regarding the alleged option premium, the Tribunal found that the CCDs cannot be equated with call options and no sale of a call option occurred, thus no option premium arises. It was held that transfer pricing provisions are not charging provisions and cannot be invoked without the existence of income chargeable to tax, relying on Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd. The adjustment of INR 33,88,000/- (sic, INR 38,88,00,000/-) was deemed unjustified. Concerning the purchase of business, the Tribunal held that section 56(2)(x) applies only to 'property' as defined therein, and 'business undertaking' is not included. As the acquisition was a slump sale between unrelated parties, section 56(2)(x) was not applicable, and the adjustment of INR 16,78,40,626/- was directed to be deleted. On the issue of interest on CCDs, the Tribunal held that the re-characterization of CCDs as equity by the Ld. TPO was beyond jurisdiction, following EKL Appliances Ltd. The RBI circular relied upon by the revenue was found not applicable in the factual context. The interest paid on CCDs, which are debt instruments until conversion, should be considered for section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had suo-motu disallowed a portion of interest under section 94B. Relying on CAE Flight Training India Pvt Ltd, the Tribunal set aside the addition and directed its deletion. The grounds of the assessee were succeeded.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemptions under Section 10(15), 10(34), and 10(23AAB) based on previous judicial precedents. The AO's disallowance of adjustments to the actuarial surplus was also found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee challenged the additions made by the AO before the first appellate authority but was non-compliant. The Tribunal, in adherence to the principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The issues were remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, and the CIT(A) was directed to admit additional evidence.
The tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 54F, the source of funds (whether own or borrowed) is irrelevant, provided the new asset is purchased within the specified period. It found that the assessee had effectively utilized the sale proceeds from the old asset to repay loans taken for the new asset, thus satisfying the condition. Regarding the brokerage income, the tribunal directed the AO to verify if the income was indeed offered to tax in AY 2014-15 and, if confirmed, to delete the addition made in AY 2013-14 to prevent double taxation.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed all 10 appeals, filed by both the assessee and the revenue, due to the company being in liquidation and the complete lack of representation from the assessee or its official liquidator. The tribunal explicitly granted liberty to both parties to request a recall of the order if there are subsequent changes in facts or circumstances.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity as it followed a binding precedent. The cross-objection was rendered academic as the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that investment activity through PMS does not give rise to business activity. Following its own previous decisions and judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal ruled that gains/losses on share transactions should be assessed under the head of capital gains.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), despite being given several opportunities. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive a fair opportunity to represent their case after the remand report due to the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown. The notices were issued, and the order was passed during the Covid period.
Given the company's liquidation status and the complete lack of compliance or representation from either the assessee or the official liquidator, the Tribunal found no utility in keeping the appeals pending. Consequently, all 10 appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were dismissed, with both parties granted the liberty to seek a recall of the order if new facts or circumstances emerge.
The Tribunal held that the approach adopted by the CIT(A) was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant company did not cooperate with the authorities in providing the required details for share capital and cash deposits. Despite this, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of these funds.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's email communication was inactive and that the CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities for hearing, which were not complied with. However, the assessee explained the reasons for non-receipt of notices and filed an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that reasonable opportunity was denied and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the trust's registration was cancelled effective March 20, 2015, it lost its status as a registered trust. Consequently, the tax on total income should be calculated at slab rates, not at MMR, and similarly, surcharge and cess should be calculated at prevailing rates. The provisions of section 115TD could not be applied as they were introduced by the Finance Act, 2016, effective June 1, 2016.
The Tribunal noted the company's liquidation and the lack of representation. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without prejudice, allowing parties to seek recall if circumstances change.
The Tribunal decided to grant the appellant one more opportunity to submit relevant documents and information before the first appellate authority. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not judiciously considered the issue and had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee an opportunity to clarify. The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed against an assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B, but the CIT(A) referred to an order from CGST and Central Excise.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding was not justified, as the Revenue failed to substantiate that the cash withdrawn was utilized elsewhere. Consequently, the addition of cash deposits as unexplained cash credit was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for adjudication. This was done after considering that identical additional evidence was admitted in previous assessment years and to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(x) cannot be invoked for transactions of stock-in-trade, especially when the purchase was recorded in the books as stock-in-trade much before the introduction of the said section. The property was not a capital asset and was held as stock-in-trade.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. Since the Departmental Representative could not present any material to counter this submission, the Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal to be dismissible.
The Tribunal held that the allocation of R&D expenses by the Assessing Officer was baseless and unwarranted, relying on previous decisions for the assessee. It further held that the transfer pricing adjustment for specified domestic transactions was invalid as the relevant section was omitted without a saving clause.