Loading ITAT cases…
577 orders · Page 7 of 12
The Tribunal noted that the appellant assessee did not offer any sufficient cause or make sincere efforts to seek condonation for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Multiple opportunities were given, but no satisfactory explanation was provided.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant assessee did not offer any sufficient cause or make sincere efforts to seek condonation for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Multiple opportunities were given, but no satisfactory explanation was provided.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant assessee did not offer any sufficient cause or make sincere efforts to seek condonation for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Multiple opportunities were given, but no satisfactory explanation was provided.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant assessee did not offer any sufficient cause or make sincere efforts to seek condonation for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Multiple opportunities were given, but no satisfactory explanation was provided.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant assessee did not offer any sufficient cause or make sincere efforts to seek condonation for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Multiple opportunities were given, but no satisfactory explanation was provided.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant assessee did not offer any sufficient cause or make sincere efforts to seek condonation for the significant delay in filing the appeals. Multiple opportunities were given, but no satisfactory explanation was provided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus of proving the source of deposits by providing the books of accounts for the relevant financial year. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition based on probabilities was considered unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence. The interest of justice would be served by setting aside the order and remitting the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's stay in India was less than 182 days and that the conditions for being a Non-Resident were met, considering the purpose of leaving India. The issue of dividend income taxation was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., held that a mere claim of loss, even if not sustainable in law, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars unless the details supplied are found to be factually incorrect. The Tribunal found no evidence of evasion of tax and that the assessee had not set off the loss in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that a mere claim, even if unsustainable under law, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Limited, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's treatment of interest expenditure was a difference of opinion, not a deliberate misrepresentation by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had deducted taxes on the contractual payments and submitted challans as proof. The assessee also provided details of TDS on service charges paid to Mrs. Matilda D'Souza.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance and failure to file a petition for additional evidence under Rule 46A. However, the assessee claimed that notices were not properly communicated and submitted an application under Rule 46A for admitting additional evidence. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without controverting the reasons provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the submissions made by the assessee before it were not considered by the lower authorities. Since the matter was not properly adjudicated, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not doubt the receipt and sale of materials, and the assessee had furnished details of purchases, payments, supplier confirmation, and sales. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that since the purchases were supported by bills, payments were made via account payee cheque, the supplier confirmed the transactions, and there was no evidence of money recycling, the addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal accepted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, noting that it was not previously filed before any revenue authorities. The Tribunal found that the issue was factual and that the assessee had raised a plea regarding the timing of the transfer and possession, which needed further verification with the additional evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company was undergoing liquidation. Since proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code had been initiated, a moratorium would have been declared, prohibiting further proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as it was not filed by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).
The Tribunal referred to Section 14 of the IBC, which prohibits suits and proceedings against a corporate debtor during a moratorium. Considering the newly inserted Section 156A of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal found it necessary to remand the appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO).
The Tribunal found it necessary to remand the issue back to the AO for verification from the parties concerned regarding the alleged unoffered gross receipts. The AO was directed to issue notice u/s 133(6) and the assessee to furnish details.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's view that deemed rent should be taxed on units against which advances were received was not sustainable. It reasoned that once advances are received and units are allotted, they are effectively sold or under a binding agreement, thus notional rent cannot be charged.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A) and did not respond to multiple hearing notices. However, under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on the grounds of appeal, even in the absence of submissions. Since the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merit, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the required documents and submissions in response to the notices. However, the CIT(E) rejected the application without considering these submissions on merit.
The tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC without a proper hearing or consideration of the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was in violation of Section 149(1)(b) as the income escaped assessment was less than the monetary threshold required for reassessment after three years. Additionally, the approval for initiating reassessment proceedings was not obtained from the correct authority as per Section 151 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the power to condone the delay in filing Form 10B vests with the CIT(E) and not with the appellate authorities. Since the assessee's plea for condonation of delay was already pending before the CIT(E), the appeal was kept alive pending adjudication.
The Tribunal, while admitting additional grounds, found that the assessee was involved in facilitating accommodation entries and earned commission. Relying on previous decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court, it was held that the entire deposit should not be treated as income, but rather a percentage of commission earned.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered document operates from the date of execution if the entire consideration was paid on or before execution. Therefore, the transaction was considered to have occurred on March 31, 2017, prior to the effective date of Section 56(2)(x).
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities to respond but failed to do so. However, it also acknowledged that the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even in cases of non-compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(E)'s order was cryptic and did not adequately explain why the application was not maintainable. It appeared that proper opportunity was not granted to the appellant. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a speaking order.
The Tribunal, while admitting additional grounds, found that the assessee was involved in facilitating accommodation entries and earned commission. Relying on previous decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court, it was held that the entire deposit should not be treated as income, but rather a percentage of commission earned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness of share subscribers, and genuineness of the transactions. Similarly, for the unsecured loan, the assessee proved the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction, especially since it was repaid within the same year.
The Tribunal held that for the disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the assessment years, no disallowance is permissible. The Tribunal relied on the clear and categorical ratio of decisions of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. and Holcim India (P.) Ltd., and also the Madras High Court in CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, to Section 14A, including a non-obstante clause and Explanation, takes effect from April 1, 2022, and is not retrospective, as held by the Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. Therefore, the disallowances made by the AO were directed to be deleted. Regarding the ESOP expenses, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions by following the decision of the Karnataka High Court which affirmed the Special Bench of the ITAT Bangalore in Biocon Ltd. Accordingly, the revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) improperly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal followed a High Court ruling stating that an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-prosecution.
The CIT(A) granted partial relief by restricting the addition to INR 79,53,025/- based on the peak credit theory. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions were not supported by adequate documentary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing the appeal. Upon reviewing the documents submitted by the assessee, including ledger accounts and vendor confirmations, the Tribunal found them essential for a just decision. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income is earned, as per various High Court judgments. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of ESOP expenses additions, following High Court decisions.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income has been earned by the assessee. This is in line with various High Court judgments, including those from Delhi and Madras.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is permissible only if there is actual exempt income. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness of share subscribers, and genuineness of the transactions. Similarly, for the unsecured loan, the assessee proved the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction, especially since it was repaid within the same year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had validly deposited the tax, surcharge, interest, and penalty as required under the IDS-2016 read with the notification dated 13.12.2019. The default in payment was rectified retrospectively by the notification. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued in contravention of the Scheme, which mandates automated allocation and faceless issuance of such notices. The issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was found to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction of interest payments. Regarding the Keyman Insurance Policy, the Tribunal noted that after assignment, it converts into an ordinary policy and the maturity benefit is exempt under Section 10(10D) of the Act. The Tribunal followed binding precedents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof by providing sufficient documentary evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors. The AO had overlooked vital documents, and the CIT(A) had taken a different view without properly appreciating the assessee's explanations.
The Tribunal held that the value on the date of allotment should be treated as the stamp duty value for the purpose of Section 56(2)(x). It was also noted that the difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement value was within the 10% tolerance limit as per the amendment effective from 01.04.2021, and therefore, no addition was to be made. The issue of ownership was kept open.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 69 on account of investment in immovable property was correctly deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the property was duly disclosed in the assessee's books of accounts as a fixed asset. The assessee had explained the source of payments made during the year under consideration, which was Rs. 1,33,65,590 out of the total property cost of Rs. 3,33,25,590. The Tribunal noted that the entire payment was not made in the year under consideration and that the assessee had provided the source for the payments made. Therefore, treating the entire sum as unexplained investment was found to be without merit. Regarding the indexed cost of improvement, the Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted payment receipts for CIDCO expenses. For EXTENSION expenses, the issue was restored to the AO for necessary verification of evidence submitted by the assessee, with a direction to afford the assessee a due opportunity of hearing. The addition upheld by the CIT(A) for CISCO (improvement cost) was not appealed by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have passed the order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee's legal heir. The impugned order was passed without proper notice and hearing.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is permissible only when there is actual receipt of exempt income. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income has been earned by the assessee. This is in line with various High Court judgments, and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective.
The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made, following numerous High Court judgments. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, was also noted as prospective.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible if no exempt income has been earned by the assessee. This is in line with various High Court judgments.