Loading ITAT cases…
577 orders · Page 4 of 12
The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were invalid as they were solely based on the assessee's non-registration, which is contrary to the second proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act. Relying on High Court decisions and CBDT Circular No. 1/2015, the Tribunal held that no action for reassessment under Section 147 can be taken merely for non-registration, especially when registration was subsequently granted and assessment proceedings were pending.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated contrary to the proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act. The reopening was based solely on the lack of 12A registration, which is not permissible under the said proviso when registration is granted shortly thereafter.
The Tribunal held that the digital files were 'dumb documents' as they lacked authenticity and corroboration, and the AO failed to follow proper procedures for digital evidence. Therefore, additions based on these documents were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the digital files were 'dumb documents' lacking authenticity and proper legal validation under the IT Act and IT Act, 2000. The AO failed to provide corroborative evidence or conduct independent inquiries to support the additions.
The assessee later filed an application for rectification of the intimation, which was allowed, providing relief. Consequently, the assessee prayed to withdraw the present appeals as the issue was resolved before the Assessing Officer.
Regarding the Section 41(1) addition, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the liability was written back in AY 2018-19 and to delete it if found correct, as it would amount to a double addition. Concerning the Section 10AA exemption, the Tribunal found no merit in the re-allocation of expenses by the AO and directed its deletion.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the exemption under Section 10(23G), following the precedent set by coordinate benches in identical cases. The assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of loss on investments was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the digital files were 'dumb documents' as they lacked authenticity and corroboration, and the AO failed to follow proper procedures for digital evidence. Therefore, additions based on these documents were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that once an amount is disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax, it should not be subject to TDS provisions again to make the assessee liable for interest under Section 201(1A). The recipients had already paid taxes on the interest received.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding the 26AS difference and remanded this issue to the AO for de novo adjudication and verification. For the disallowance of management service fees, the Tribunal, relying on its own previous decisions and a CIT(A) order for earlier assessment years, found that the lower authorities failed to prove the payment was excessive or unreasonable, thus deleting the disallowance. The issue of non-grant of set-off for earlier year losses was also remanded to the AO for adjudication after necessary verification.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the exemption under Section 10(23G), following the precedent set by coordinate benches in identical cases. The assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of loss on investments was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were initiated contrary to the proviso to Section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act. The reopening was based solely on the lack of 12A registration, which is not permissible under the said proviso when registration is granted shortly thereafter.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance, and the assessee argued that non-receipt of a hearing notice prevented them from appearing. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to restore the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Authorized Representative contended the transactions were genuine and requested another opportunity to present the case. The Departmental Representative opposed this, stating the assessee had multiple opportunities. The Tribunal, deeming it fit to provide one last opportunity in the interest of natural justice, remanded the case to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to various defects, including the AO stating it was the first assessment when it was already assessed under Section 143(3), and failing to specify the assessee's failure to disclose material facts for reopening beyond four years. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with another cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal noted that cooperative banks are also cooperative societies, and therefore, interest earned from them is deductible. However, the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii) for Rs. 11,717/- was not allowed as it was passive income not attributable to the specified activities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the inactive email ID prevented the assessee from receiving the order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and granted the assessee another opportunity to present their case, directing them to update their email ID and track proceedings online.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153C was bad in law due to the invalidity of the notice issued beyond the prescribed limitation period and the absence of a proper satisfaction note. Furthermore, no incriminating material was found to support the additions made.
The Tribunal noted that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) allows for deduction if the payees have disclosed the income and paid taxes. The assessee submitted a certificate in Form 26A, but the AO required further evidence like ITRs and audit reports. The Tribunal found that while the assessee discharged the primary onus by submitting Form 26A, the AO has the power to examine the veracity of these forms and seek information from the payees. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for further inquiry.
The Tribunal noted that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) allows for deduction if the payees have disclosed the income and paid taxes. The assessee submitted a certificate in Form 26A, but the AO required further evidence like ITRs and audit reports. The Tribunal found that while the assessee discharged the primary onus by submitting Form 26A, the AO has the power to examine the veracity of these forms and seek information from the payees. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for further inquiry.
The Tribunal noted that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) allows for deduction if the payees have disclosed the income and paid taxes. The assessee submitted a certificate in Form 26A, but the AO required further evidence like ITRs and audit reports. The Tribunal found that while the assessee discharged the primary onus by submitting Form 26A, the AO has the power to examine the veracity of these forms and seek information from the payees. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report without objective analysis and did not prove the assessee was part of a price manipulation group. The purchases and sales were conducted on the stock exchange, supported by contract notes and routed through bank accounts, and the assessee incurred a short-term capital loss.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 54F as she owned only one residential house on the date of transfer of shares, after scrutinizing the properties claimed by the AO. Regarding the sale of gifted shares, the Tribunal found that the sale consideration was not an unexplained cash credit as the gift was evidenced by a gift deed. Similarly, for unsecured loans, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions as the assessee had explained the nature of the cash credits, including repayments of earlier loans and school fees.
The Tribunal noted that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) allows for deduction if the payees have disclosed the income and paid taxes. The assessee submitted a certificate in Form 26A, but the AO required further evidence like ITRs and audit reports. The Tribunal found that while the assessee discharged the primary onus by submitting Form 26A, the AO has the power to examine the veracity of these forms and seek information from the payees. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the Allotment Letter dated 31/03/2015 should be considered as the agreement fixing the consideration for the transfer of the flat. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of the provisos to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. The stamp duty valuation on the date of the Allotment Letter should be considered, and since it was less than the sale consideration, no addition could be made.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) was ex parte and violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that Section 250(2)(a) of the Act mandates the right to be heard for the appellant, and this hearing must be effective, not merely a formality. The CIT(A)'s order itself indicated that the appeal was adjudicated ex parte. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was required to present its case within 60 days from the date of the order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of grounds 2 through 9.
The Tribunal held that GST cannot be included while computing presumptive income under Section 44B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 44B specifically defines the amounts to be considered for computing profits, and GST is not among them. It distinguished the DRP's reliance on CBDT Circular No. 10/2017, noting that the Delhi High Court had held such circulars ultra vires. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that while Section 44B overrides Sections 28-43A, it does not override Section 43B. However, it clarified that the primary issue is the applicability of Section 145A, which it found to have no applicability for computing income under Section 44B. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the minority view of the DRP member and decided the issue in favour of the assessee, directing deletion of the addition. Regarding book profit under Section 115JB, the Tribunal held it was not applicable due to the assessee offering income under Section 44B read with the India-Hong Kong DTAA, allowing this ground. For TDS and advance tax credit, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the rectification application. Interest and fees were held to be consequential.
The Tribunal found that the Assessee had adequately explained the source of the seized cash, including an opening cash balance declared in the ITR and funds from M/s. Arcadia Shares and Stock Brokers Private Limited, supported by documentary evidence. The AO's observations were deemed unsupported by material on record. Therefore, the addition of INR 13,10,400/- under Section 69A was not sustainable, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, held that the ex-gratia payment was salary received in advance and not compensation for loss of office. The assessee is entitled to relief under Section 89(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal restored the issue of property tax deduction to the AO for verification, directing that if the land was treated as non-agricultural and tax was charged accordingly, the deduction should be allowed. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the claim for set-off of brought forward losses under section 71B and allow them after due verification.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously restored a similar matter to the assessing officer due to the assessee not receiving notices. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the material fact that the assessee did not receive the notice, which was crucial for the penalty. Therefore, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the unregistered MoU, dated 14/01/2013, was prepared subsequent to the registered agreement for sale dated 08/07/2013, and the deed of conveyance dated 15/07/2014. Since Section 56(2)(viib) was inserted with effect from 01/04/2014, it was applicable from AY 2014-15. The CIT(A) had erred in its interpretation by applying it to the earlier MoU.
The Tribunal noted that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) allows for deduction if the payees have disclosed the income and paid taxes. The assessee submitted a certificate in Form 26A, but the AO required further evidence like ITRs and audit reports. The Tribunal found that while the assessee discharged the primary onus by submitting Form 26A, the AO has the power to examine the veracity of these forms and seek information from the payees. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for further inquiry.
The Tribunal held that the primary ground raised by the assessee, which was the lack of a proper opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A), was valid. The Tribunal observed that no proper opportunity was given to the assessee by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, indicating that the substantive issues of reopening and disallowance were not adjudicated on merits but were remanded back due to procedural infirmities. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without properly considering the reasons for the delay, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's suo motu writ petition extending limitation periods. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, especially when the assessee is not benefiting from the delay. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not respond to notices, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantial discussion on merits, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the issue involves transactions with Renuka Exim Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee's claim that it was a payment made on behalf of another party. Crucially, the supporting documents were allegedly not placed before the lower authorities for their consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan from its shareholder, thus deleting the addition under Section 68. Regarding Section 35(2AB), the Tribunal ruled that deduction is allowable for expenditure incurred prior to the approval date if the R&D facility is recognized.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed non-compliance was due to notices being sent to an employee who had left the organization. The Tribunal decided to restore the case to the AO for proper verification of documents and to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal noted that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) allows for deduction if the payees have disclosed the income and paid taxes. The assessee submitted a certificate in Form 26A, but the AO required further evidence like ITRs and audit reports. The Tribunal found that while the assessee discharged the primary onus by submitting Form 26A, the AO has the power to examine the veracity of these forms and seek information from the payees. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for further inquiry.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. For commission expenses, a portion was confirmed while the rest was deleted. Salary expenses were dismissed as claimed without sufficient supporting evidence. Sales promotion expenses were partly allowed, and advertising expenses were fully disallowed due to lack of supporting bills. The Tribunal found that the AO did not follow the prescribed procedure for verifying commission expenses.
The Tribunal noted that the AO relied heavily on a generalized investigation report without specific material linking the assessee's transactions to market manipulation. The assessee had conducted transactions through banking channels and the stock exchange, providing documentation. The AO did not find deficiencies in the provided evidence, and SEBI had not investigated the assessee or their broker. The Tribunal found no reason to suspect the purchase and sale of shares.
The Tribunal held that since the issue is recurring and has been decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years by the Tribunal's coordinate bench and upheld by the jurisdictional High Court, there is no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the AO's appreciation of facts was incorrect. The evidence showed that the assessee had provided loans of Rs. 1 Crore each to two companies in earlier financial years, and the amounts received during the assessment year were repayments of these loans, not accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that since the return was filed within the extended due date and the net tax liability was Nil after TDS credit, interest under section 234A was not leviable. Similarly, interest under section 234B was also not leviable as it was consequential to tax payable after TDS credit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all relevant documents for the purchase and sale of shares, which were conducted through a recognized stock exchange via banking channels. The Tribunal also relied on previous judgments, including one from the Jurisdictional High Court, which dealt with similar facts and deleted identical additions. The Tribunal found no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the peculiar facts and the undertaking given by the assessee's counsel to provide necessary documents, decided to remand the case.
The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts that dealt with similar issues of penny stock transactions.
The Tribunal dismissed the incentive disallowance ground as withdrawn by the assessee. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal held that it does not apply when no exempt income is received or receivable, and the assessee had sufficient own non-interest bearing funds for investments, citing High Court precedents. Consequently, the disallowances under Section 14A for both assessment years were deleted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee had explained that the appeal was filed erroneously as a duplicate appeal before the D Bench, while the original appeal was already being heard by the H Bench. The physical submission of documents was mistakenly treated as a separate appeal. The Tribunal found considerable cogency in the assessee's application for withdrawal. Since the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal and the revenue did not object, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the section 147 notice or the disallowance of standard deduction.