Loading ITAT cases…
577 orders · Page 5 of 12
The Tribunal held that the assessee trust falls under the category of 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' and is subject to the proviso to Section 2(15). However, it was unclear whether the trust's activities were incidental to its objects and if separate books of accounts were maintained as required by Section 11(4A).
The Tribunal held that the CPC failed to provide the mandatory 30-day notice period before making the adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act. The addition was made hastily and was therefore unsustainable. The assessee's claim of inadvertence in not reporting the income was accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee provided documentation to establish the genuineness of the share transactions, including purchase and sale through recognized stock exchanges, payments via banking channels, and STT payment. It also observed that SEBI had revoked interim orders against certain entities, and no action was taken against the Assessee. Relying on High Court judgments and its own co-ordinate benches' decisions on similar cases, the Tribunal found that the Assessee had discharged its onus.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee has not earned any exempt income and has made investments from its own interest-free funds, which are sufficient to cover the investments, then no disallowance can be made under Section 14A of the Act, even in light of the amended provisions.
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 Since the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal and the revenue did not object, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have accepted the evidence and decided the appeal accordingly. For the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the AO.
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 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 held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the first ground as withdrawn by the Assessee. For the second ground, it was held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not applicable when no exempt income is received or receivable. The Tribunal, relying on High Court judgments (Cheminvest Ltd. and HDFC Bank Ltd.), noted the Assessee had sufficient own/non-interest bearing funds and had not earned any exempt income, thus deleting the addition.
The Tribunal observed that the appellant was given multiple opportunities for hearing and to submit evidence, but failed to do so. Citing the principle that 'preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it,' the Tribunal noted the appellant's non-pursuance and lack of evidence.
The Tribunal, considering the appellant's old age and the fact that the first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance, decided to give one more opportunity. However, a cost of Rs. 11,000/- was levied on the appellant for non-response to notices. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an effective opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the medical reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the Assessee's constitution primarily focuses on charitable activities, and while some religious activities were conducted, they were incidental. The Assessee also provided an undertaking to focus on charitable activities. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the case.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only when an expenditure is claimed as a deduction in the profit and loss account and the tax deductible at source has not been deducted or paid. In this case, the amounts in question were capitalized and not debited to the profit and loss account, nor claimed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable.
The Tribunal noted that while co-operative banks may not be entitled to deduction under Section 80P(4), a co-operative society earning interest income from investments held with a co-operative bank would be entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Following coordinate benches and its own previous order, the Tribunal decided to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal noted the significant delay in processing the appeal and the Assessee's claim of not receiving notices due to this delay. Considering the peculiar facts and for substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 265 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to a misunderstanding of legal provisions and improper guidance. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
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 dismissed the assessee's objections to the reassessment proceedings. It held that the property was stock-in-trade, and thus the income from its transfer should be treated as 'business income', not 'capital gain'. The Tribunal also ruled that the correct Assessment Year for the transfer was AY 2013-14, as the registered conveyance deed was executed then, overriding the assessee's claim for AY 2008-09 based on an unregistered agreement. The AO was directed to re-compute the profits as business income.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the reason for reopening (violation of Section 269SS) did not align with the section under which the addition was made (Section 69A). Additionally, there was no evidence of the loan except for retracted statements, and the issue was previously settled in favor of the appellant.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings, while initiated based on information received, were ultimately rendered academic as the additions made on merits were deleted. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,46,172/- as notional commission expenses, the Tribunal found that the AO's allegations regarding the source of funds, email usage, and shareholder means were not adequately dealt with by the CIT(A) despite the assessee providing counter-submissions and documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the AO had relied heavily on the investigation wing's report without independent verification. The Tribunal observed that the AO's presumption of commission on purchases from non-genuine parties was based on conjecture, and the ad-hoc application of commission at 0.25% was not sustainable. Consequently, the addition on account of ad-hoc commission was deleted. Similar issues for other assessment years were also decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that for AY 2018-19, the addition was made on account of alleged commission on purchases from specific entities, and the assessee had submitted purchase invoices, warehouse receipts, delivery orders, bank statements, and GST returns. The Tribunal, following its findings in other appeals, deleted the addition on account of alleged commission. The legal issues regarding the validity of reassessment were kept open as the additions on merits were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were invalid and time-barred due to lack of proper jurisdiction in issuing notices under Section 153C. Consequently, grounds on merit for these years became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings, while initiated based on information received, were ultimately rendered academic as the additions made on merits were deleted. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,46,172/- as notional commission expenses, the Tribunal found that the AO's allegations regarding the source of funds, email usage, and shareholder means were not adequately dealt with by the CIT(A) despite the assessee providing counter-submissions and documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the AO had relied heavily on the investigation wing's report without independent verification. The Tribunal observed that the AO's presumption of commission on purchases from non-genuine parties was based on conjecture, and the ad-hoc application of commission at 0.25% was not sustainable. Consequently, the addition on account of ad-hoc commission was deleted. Similar issues for other assessment years were also decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that for AY 2018-19, the addition was made on account of alleged commission on purchases from specific entities, and the assessee had submitted purchase invoices, warehouse receipts, delivery orders, bank statements, and GST returns. The Tribunal, following its findings in other appeals, deleted the addition on account of alleged commission. The legal issues regarding the validity of reassessment were kept open as the additions on merits were deleted.
The Tribunal decided on various additions made by the Assessing Officer. In some instances, additions were quashed due to lack of evidence or being made in the hands of the wrong assessee. However, one addition related to unexplained investment in a car was confirmed due to insufficient documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were invalid and without jurisdiction, as the notices issued were time-barred. Consequently, the grounds on merit became infructuous for these years.
The Tribunal noted that the power to condone the delay in filing Form 9A and Form 10 rests with the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Since the petition for condonation of delay is pending before the CIT(E), that decision will prevail.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly referred to a previous tribunal decision and found that the survey proceedings, along with the search, revealed incriminating facts regarding companies controlled by the assessee. Therefore, the grounds challenging the invocation of Section 153A and the addition of commission income were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 were invalid and the notices issued for these years were time-barred and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the grounds on merit became infructuous. The appeals related to AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 were allowed.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The issues were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had adjudicated the appeal in default without a finding on merits. Citing Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates a reasoned order, the Tribunal felt it appropriate to set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restore the appeal for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee expressed willingness to modify its object clause to remove any scope for application of income outside India and had provided an undertaking to this effect. The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for re-examination of the modified object clauses.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee expressed willingness to modify its object clause to remove any scope for application of income outside India and had provided an undertaking to this effect. The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for re-examination of the modified object clauses.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred on increasing authorized share capital for issuing bonus shares are revenue expenditure, not covered by Section 35D. It also found that the Assessing Officer erred in treating loans and commission expenses as bogus without proper inquiry, but restored the issue of a specific loan to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal noted that notices were sent to an unrelated email, leading to non-compliance. The appeal was dismissed ex-parte, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh notice and decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with another opportunity to justify that their turnover was higher than reported due to a mistake, supported by prior year's turnover figures.
The Tribunal held that the conversion of tenancy rights into ownership rights, as opposed to the purchase of an immovable property, does not attract Section 56(2)(x). The assessee merely acquired ownership of the flat he already occupied as a tenant.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty, following previous decisions of the ITAT and Bombay High Court in similar cases concerning the diamond industry. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with relevant provisions.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had adjudicated the appeal in default without a finding on merits. Citing Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates a reasoned order, the Tribunal felt it appropriate to set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restore the appeal for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay but admitted the appeal for adjudication, citing Supreme Court precedents regarding condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without a reasoned decision, which violates Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the Ld. Commissioner due to miscommunication, despite opportunities. The Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal found that for proper decision and substantial justice, the case should be remanded.
The Tribunal held that assessment notices under Section 153C for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 were time-barred and without jurisdiction, as the satisfaction note was recorded on 11.09.2018. It also ruled that the Section 143(3) assessment for AY 2017-18 was without jurisdiction since normal assessments abate under Section 153C. Most additions for unexplained expenditure/investments, cash deposits, and proposed payments were quashed or deleted, often citing the presumptive taxation scheme (Section 44AD), telescoping principle, or lack of actual transactions/proof, except for an unexplained investment in a car (Rs. 3,28,000/-) which was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly referred to a previous tribunal decision and found that the survey proceedings, along with the search, revealed incriminating facts regarding companies controlled by the assessee. Therefore, the grounds challenging the invocation of Section 153A and the addition of commission income were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had considered the assessee's business of scrap sale and that the entire cash deposits might not be treated as unexplained. However, the Commissioner confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.15,95,000/- for deposits during the demonetization period.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 153C for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were time-barred and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment orders for these years were deemed invalid, rendering the grounds on merit infructuous.
The Tribunal held that once the CIT(A) rectified the mistake and substituted the order reference, the appeal against the reassessment order should have been revived. The inability to decide due to system limitations was not a valid ground.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the grounds raised by the assessee, even in the absence of submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to him for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that while the AO relied on the Investigation Wing's report and unserved notices, the assessee provided supporting purchase bills, sales bills, and other documents. Acknowledging the difficulty in directly linking purchases to sales and considering that a similar addition in AY 2009-10 was restricted to 12.5% profit, the Tribunal decided to estimate the profit on alleged bogus purchases at 12.5%.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's expenditure, including contingency expenses, were recorded in the books of account. Unlike search cases, survey operations require the revenue to provide cogent evidence of unrecorded expenditure. The AO himself admitted that the total cost in the CTC matched the books, though individual heads differed. The Tribunal found no merit in the additions made by the AO and directed their deletion.
The Tribunal held that for deposits made after the due date due to public holidays, the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for verification. However, for delays attributed to technical glitches in the EPFO portal, the claim for deduction was rejected as the law does not permit deductions beyond the prescribed date.