Loading ITAT cases…
541 orders · Page 4 of 11
The assessee requested the appeals to be kept in abeyance while they pursued the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024'. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were pending as of the cut-off date for the scheme and that the assessee was eligible. The Revenue's DR had no objection to the appeals being dismissed as withdrawn if the assessee availed the scheme.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, as per the Bombay High Court ruling, and that the appeal should have been decided on its merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge their initial burden to prove the source of the cash deposits. Relying on various case laws, the Tribunal observed that the assessee did not provide any concrete evidence to substantiate their claim of personal savings or business withdrawals, making the addition by the revenue authorities justified.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, despite the assessee filing appeals in the names of both the predecessor and the successor entities. The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the appeals should be decided on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to both parties.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, despite the assessee filing appeals in the names of both the predecessor and the successor entities. The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the appeals should be decided on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to both parties.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, despite the assessee filing appeals in the names of both the predecessor and the successor entities. The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the appeals should be decided on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to both parties.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity to explain the delay. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on the condonation of delay application.
The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) adopted a hyper-technical approach in considering the grounds for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee's affidavit for condonation of delay of 544 days provided sufficient cause. The reasons cited included the assessee being a senior citizen with no knowledge of tax technicalities, the death of her CA during the Covid-19 second wave, and her own health issues and Covid-19 restrictions preventing her from appointing another consultant. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order was passed during the Covid-19 period, and the limitation period expired during this time. It referred to the Supreme Court's suo motu order in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 for condonation of delay due to the pandemic. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. for a liberal approach to condoning delay to do substantial justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and directed it to restore the appeal on its file and dispose of it on merits after considering the material on record. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(A) within 90 days. The issue of the addition of Rs. 1,18,70,489/- was left undecided as the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed two appeals for the same assessment year and against the same order. One appeal was filed with incorrect details (NFAC New Delhi as assessing officer), leading to its initial filing before the Delhi tribunal, which was later transferred to Mumbai. The second appeal was filed with correct details before the Mumbai tribunal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the lenders had provided sufficient evidence of their financial standing and the source of funds, including their own assessment orders under Section 143(3) where no adverse inferences were drawn.
The Tribunal observed that the present appeal was a duplicate filing of the appeal already filed by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was considered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition because the AO did not conduct sufficient investigation and relied solely on suspicion. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not afforded an adequate opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that passing an assessment order without disposing of the assessee's objections to the reopening, as per the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, renders the assessment order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the term 'activities' in the context of registration includes proposed activities, and the Commissioner must be satisfied about the genuineness of the objects and proposed activities. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's interpretation of Rule 8D(2)(ii) was arbitrary and a misinterpretation of the provision. The assessee's computation aligned with the intent of the rule.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment was bad in law. The Assessing Officer had failed to dispose of the objections raised by the Assessee against the reasons for reopening, which is a contravention of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) and the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in KSS Petron Private Ltd. v. ACIT. Consequently, the assessment order framed pursuant to the said notice was quashed. Since the assessment order was quashed on the preliminary ground of invalid reopening, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to delve into the merits of the other issues concerning the disallowance of bogus purchases and the deduction under Section 35AC. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection filed by the Assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 was justified. It reasoned that the basis for reopening was incriminating material received from the Investigation Wing regarding the non-genuineness of the donation to SHG&PH, which had admitted to providing bogus donation entries before the Settlement Commission. This distinguished the case from precedents like Chotatingrai Tea, where the withdrawal of approval was the primary factor and there was no evidence of the donor receiving back the donation. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to comply with the AO's specific requests for details to prove the genuineness of the donation. Due to the assessee's non-compliance and the lack of opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements formed the basis of the disallowance, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the issue afresh, provide the relied-upon documents to the assessee, and grant an opportunity for a reply. The assessee is directed to make necessary compliance to substantiate its claim. The issue of the extent of disallowance and the rate of weighted deduction was not definitively decided but is to be re-examined by the AO.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained investment and cash credit. The Tribunal found that the identity and creditworthiness of the parties involved in share premium were established, and the source of funds was justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the Assessing Officer's comments on additional evidence filed by the assessee, likely due to the faceless appeal process. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO over and above the gross profit already disclosed by the assessee should be deleted. It followed a co-ordinate bench decision where, even with accommodation bills, no extra profit was added if the GP rate was already high and books of account were not rejected.
The Tribunal held that the long-term capital gains were genuine and not accommodation entries, thus upholding the deletion of additions related to LTCG and commission expenses. However, the Tribunal also upheld the addition of Rs. 2.00 crores based on the WhatsApp chat, finding it to be unexplained cash credit.
The Tribunal, following the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision, held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without proper inquiry. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination of the source and utilization of cash withdrawals, and for reconciliation of the quantum.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued beyond the three-year period without fulfilling the condition of escaped income exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the reopening was bad in law.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices for hearing which were not attended by the assessee's representative. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 5000/-.
The Tribunal held that while previous interpretations allowed for activities outside India if actual expenditure was incurred, the insertion of sub-sections 4 & 5 by the Finance Act, 2022, widened the scope of violations. Therefore, compliance with other laws for achieving the objects is now a necessary condition for registration.
The Tribunal held that the long-term capital gains were genuine and not accommodation entries, thus deleting the additions related to capital gains and commission expenses. The addition based on the WhatsApp chat was also deleted due to lack of evidentiary value.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction of bad debts was duly supported by Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, read with the second proviso, and ICDS. The Tribunal found that the income recognised as per ICDS-IV, which was not recoverable and treated as bad debt, was allowable. Consequently, the assessment order allowing the claim could not be considered erroneous.
The Tribunal held that while there was a failure to respond to notices, the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to severe personal and family issues faced by the Director. Section 273B of the Income Tax Act provides for immunity from penalty if there is a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that while there was a failure to respond to notices, the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to severe personal and family issues faced by the Director. Section 273B of the Income Tax Act provides for immunity from penalty if there is a reasonable cause.
The Tribunal held that while previous interpretations allowed for activities outside India if actual expenditure was incurred, the insertion of sub-sections 4 & 5 by the Finance Act, 2022, widened the scope of violations. Therefore, compliance with other laws for achieving the objects is now a necessary condition for registration.
The Tribunal held that the extended period of ten assessment years for assessment under Section 153C is not applicable if the search was conducted prior to April 1, 2017. Therefore, the assessment for AY 2011-12, which falls beyond the six-year period from the date of receipt of information, is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the cash sales, supported by cash memos, cannot be doubted as they are in the ordinary course of business and form part of the total turnover. The AO failed to provide evidence to support the allegation of bogus cash sales. The CIT(A)'s restriction of the disallowance was also not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of additions. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case falls under the proviso of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, not Section 56(2)(x). The assessee fulfilled the criteria outlined in the proviso, particularly regarding the date of the agreement and payments made before it. Therefore, the difference between the stamp duty value and the agreed consideration is not taxable income.
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient material to justify the reopening of the assessment. However, due to the assessee not being provided an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements formed the basis of the disallowance, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that transfer expenses incurred in connection with a slump sale are allowable deductions under Section 48(i) of the Act, despite Section 50B being a special provision for slump sales. It also held that additional depreciation on computers used for manufacturing is admissible.
The Tribunal observed that the addition was made without affording the assessee an opportunity for clarification and that the category under which it was made reflected a Nil amount in the assessee's return. The CIT(A) also agreed that the addition was made without proper procedure.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It deleted the addition on the second transaction under Section 43CA, sustained the addition for building maintenance charges as business income, and remanded the issue of income offered in AY 2017-18 to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the date of allotment, as per the allotment letter, should be considered as the date of acquisition for capital gains purposes, relying on CBDT circulars and High Court decisions. Consequently, the gain was reclassified as Long Term Capital Gain.
The Tribunal held that the long-term capital gains were genuine and deleted the additions related to capital gains and commission expenses. However, it upheld the addition of Rs. 2.00 crores based on the WhatsApp chat.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits. Citing a Bombay High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must dispose of it on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest on delayed payment of TDS is not an expenditure wholly and exclusively for business purposes and thus not allowable as a deduction. The grounds related to this issue were dismissed.
On the first issue regarding Section 80-IA deduction for the power generation undertaking, the Tribunal held that the undertaking was undisputedly formed on 09/10/2009. There was no evidence that it was formed in the current assessment year. The Tribunal noted that the AO placed emphasis on Section 80-IA(3) concerning splitting up or reconstruction. However, the CIT(A) correctly observed that the deduction is undertaking-specific, and the ownership changed from a company to an LLP to a firm, which does not constitute splitting up or reconstruction. The Tribunal, respectfully following the decisions of coordinate benches, held that the income from the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates is a capital receipt and not business income. Therefore, it is not chargeable to tax. The impugned order on this issue was set aside, and the assessee's ground was allowed. Consequently, the issue arising from the assessee's third ground was rendered academic. The levy of interest under Sections 234B and 234C was held to be consequential. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, as evidenced by non-attendance at hearings and unreturned notices. The appeal was heard ex-parte. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the additions made by the AO, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence to justify the claims.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had traded through Progressive Share Brokers Pvt. Ltd., which was not named in Shri Naresh Jain's statement regarding brokers involved in price manipulation. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) had considered that the public at large also bought shares of VMS Industries Limited, making it possible that the assessee was one such public investor acting on market information. Furthermore, the assessee had earned a meager short-term capital gain of Rs. 20,217, not LTCG or STCL. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's conclusion was based on conjectures and surmises, not on the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. Therefore, the assessee's transactions could not be treated as non-genuine. The ratio decidendi is that an AO cannot make additions based solely on general investigation findings without independent inquiry into the assessee's specific transactions, especially when the assessee's dealings do not align with the alleged manipulators' methods and the transactions appear to be with the general public. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 13,49,913/- was rightly deleted. In light of this finding, the second issue regarding the deletion of Rs. 27,000/- commission also did not arise, and this addition was also rightly deleted. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order of the CIT(A) was confirmed.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not mention any evidence submitted by the assessee regarding its activities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) to consider the evidence of the trust's activities, including medical camps.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were initiated beyond the permissible time limit as per the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh. The date of receipt of information by the jurisdictional AO, not the date of search, is the starting point for calculating the limitation period for non-searched persons.
The Tribunal held that the change in ownership of the power generation undertaking from a company to an LLP and then to a firm did not constitute reconstruction for the purpose of Section 80-IA. It further held that income from the sale of RECs is a capital receipt and not business income, thus not eligible for 80-IA deduction.