Loading ITAT cases…
667 orders · Page 11 of 14
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for appeals. Since the Assessing Officer could not convince the Tribunal that the matter fell under any exception to the CBDT circular, the revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application hurriedly without affording sufficient opportunity for hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Although the assessee failed to provide information despite notices, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision on merit, granting the assessee a final opportunity to submit details.
The Tribunal held that payments for maintenance, support, and additional services are not FTS as the 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA was not satisfied. The assessee did not make available technical knowledge, know-how, or skill to enable the recipient to independently apply the technology.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application hurriedly without affording sufficient opportunity for hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Although the assessee failed to provide information despite notices, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision on merit, granting the assessee a final opportunity to submit details.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's undertaking to amend the impugned objective in the trust-deed. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration upon amendment of the objects.
The Tribunal held that while the primary condition for exemption is applying income for charitable purposes, accumulation is permissible under certain conditions and requires filing of specific forms. However, considering the CBDT Circulars extending the applicability for condoning delays in filing these forms, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of exemption.
The Tribunal held that simultaneous proceedings are not legally entertainable and the assessee may have inadvertently or under misconception filed the appeal incorrectly. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that simultaneous proceedings are not legally entertainable and the assessee may have inadvertently or under misconception filed the appeal incorrectly. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act cannot be made applicable to the assessee banking company, as the same is governed by the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. The CIT(A) was also held to be correct in their assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 508 days and no application for condonation of delay was filed. Considering the non-compliance and delay, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee expressed satisfaction with the proposal for restoration of the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal decided that it has the power to condone the delay in filing appeals, provided there are sufficient reasons. In this case, the Tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were not convincing or sufficient to warrant condonation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not demonstrated any "sufficient cause" as contemplated under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. Since the assessee failed to establish a valid reason for the delay, the Tribunal held that the appeals were barred by limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable due to the unexplained delay. No specific finding was made on the merits of the substantive issues of the assessment, as the appeals were disposed of on a preliminary ground.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares was genuine, supported by documentary evidence and active trading of the scrip. The AO's reliance on retracted statements and third-party documents was found insufficient to prove fraud.
The Tribunal held that the addition of the entire purchase and sale transactions as unexplained credit was not justified. It reasoned that even if the transactions were considered non-genuine, the assessee only received the profit, and this profit was already disclosed in the return. Therefore, only the profit could potentially be considered undisclosed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were invalid. The notice under Section 148 was issued without obtaining proper approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, as more than three years had elapsed since the end of the assessment year. The proviso to Section 151, relied upon by the revenue, was inserted prospectively and not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares was not bogus, as the purchase was accepted, and the sale was conducted through the stock exchange with proper documentation. The AO's additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares was not bogus, as the purchase was accepted, and the sale was conducted through the stock exchange with proper documentation. The additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the long-term capital gains of Rs. 3,28,601/- arising from the sale of shares in Pranneta Industries Ltd. were not bogus. The Tribunal reasoned that the purchase of shares was accepted by the AO, and the sale was conducted through the legitimate online platform of the BSE, with STT paid and supported by statutory documents. The scrip was actively traded, and there was no ban on its trading by SEBI or BSE. The Tribunal noted that SEBI orders against some buyers were reversed by SAT, and the reliance on statements from third parties was weakened by retractions and the lack of cross-examination. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not discussed or commented upon the purchase and sale documents provided by the assessee. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 3,28,601/- under Section 68 was deleted, and the assessee was held entitled to the exemption under Section 10(38). Furthermore, the notional addition of Rs. 17,249/- under Section 69C for estimated unexplained expenses was also deleted as the primary LTCG claim was allowed. The findings were applied mutatis mutandis to all other appeals.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not disputed the purchase of shares, only the sale transactions. The AO had taxed the net long-term capital gain (LTCG), indicating that the quantum of purchase was not in question. The shares were subscribed to via convertible warrants and later converted into shares, with payments made by account payee cheques. The sale of these shares occurred on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) through its online screen-based mechanism, facilitated by a registered broker, and Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid. The Tribunal observed that the AO's action of taxing the net LTCG implicitly accepted the genuineness of the purchase. The core of the dispute was the alleged bogus nature of the sale. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought any material on record to substantiate the claim that the sale transactions were bogus. The fact that the sale was executed through a recognized stock exchange platform, with a registered broker and payment of STT, further supported the genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the addition made on account of alleged bogus LTCG and estimated unexplained expenses was deleted. The appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares was not bogus, as the purchase was accepted, and the sale was conducted through the stock exchange with proper documentation. The additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153A were valid as a search was conducted and incriminating documents were found. Regarding the addition under Section 68 for long-term capital gain, the Tribunal found that the assessee had subscribed to shares of PIL in 2009 and sold them in 2012, holding them for more than 12 months, thus qualifying for long-term capital gain. The AO's assumption that the shares were acquired in the assessment year was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not brought any material on record to suggest that the transaction was not genuine or that the assessee had not paid for the shares. The Tribunal also observed that the AO had not disputed the source of funds for purchasing the shares. Consequently, the addition under Section 68 was deleted. Since the primary addition under Section 68 was deleted, the consequential addition under Section 69C for unexplained expenses was also deleted. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete both additions.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares was not bogus, as the purchase was accepted, and the sale was conducted through the stock exchange with proper documentation. The additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the sale of shares was not bogus, as the purchase was accepted, shares were sold through an online stock exchange mechanism with STT paid, and the scrip was actively traded. The additions made by the AO were deleted.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are made on an estimation basis, especially in the absence of active concealment of income. The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the parties to seek recalling of the order if the Assessee fails to deposit the determined amount under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024.
The Tribunal observed that recent circulars have removed the exception for cases reopened on audit objection, even if the tax effect is low. Therefore, the appeal was considered not maintainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The AO's addition was based solely on an Investigation Wing report, which did not match the assessee's books or records from the previous assessment. The Tribunal found no evidence that the amount was credited in the assessee's books or bank account, making the invocation of Section 68 inappropriate.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee intended to settle the dispute via the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Considering this, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to both parties to seek recall of the order if the settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that the Core SGF is a separate entity for income tax purposes and that contributions made to it by the assessee are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal set aside the disallowances made by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable when the addition to income is made on an estimation basis. The Tribunal found no material to show active concealment of income by the assessee. The additions made on estimation by the AO, and subsequently confirmed by the CIT(A) to the extent of 12.5%, do not warrant the initiation of penalty proceedings. The Tribunal relied on a series of judgments from various High Courts and Coordinate Benches of the ITAT, including the Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Parasamal Babulal Jain, which held that penalty cannot be levied on disallowance of expenses made on an estimate basis in the absence of facts proving concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is liable to be deleted. Regarding the issue of defective notices, the Tribunal noted that since the penalty itself was deleted, the question of defective notice became infructuous and was dismissed. The grounds raised by the assessee concerning the penalty were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the contributions to the Core SGF are mandatory statutory contributions incurred exclusively for carrying on the assessee's business. Therefore, they are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2001-02 to 2005-06 was not valid. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in Brahm Dutt vs. ACIT and similar ITAT Mumbai rulings, the Tribunal found that the amended provisions of Section 149, which extended the limitation period for reopening to sixteen years, could not be applied to concluded proceedings where the limitation period had already expired before the amendment became effective. Therefore, the cross-objections challenging the time-bar for these years were allowed. Regarding the issue of income escaping assessment, the Tribunal noted that the reassessment in respect of client code no. 5091327690 was not valid as it had already been reopened and taxed in AY 2006-07. Consequently, similar cross-objections for AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 were also allowed. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 1000/- disallowance was not justified as the assessee had already accounted for it as a disallowance in its return, leading to a double addition. The Tribunal also held that the contingent liability was not a deductible expense and was merely a disclosure, and the CIT(A) correctly considered this. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal reviewed the order and found an inadvertent typographical mistake in the ITA number. The Tribunal corrected the ITA number from 4032/Mum/2023 to 4023/Mum/2023 for the assessment year 2019-20.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not make proper compliance before the AO regarding their claims of ancestral property and co-ownership. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions and directing the assessee to make requisite compliance.
The Tribunal first addressed the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the invalidity of reassessment proceedings due to the AO's failure to dispose of objections. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. and subsequent High Court judgments in Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. and KSS Petron Private Ltd., the Tribunal held that the AO assumed jurisdiction for reopening the assessment without first disposing of the assessee's objections by passing a speaking order. This was considered an exercise in excess of jurisdiction and ultra vires Section 147 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment notice under section 148 and the consequent assessment order were set aside. As the reassessment proceedings were quashed on this preliminary ground, the Tribunal found no necessity to delve into the merits of the case, specifically the issues concerning the mark-up on reimbursement of overheads and foreign fluctuation gain. The additional ground raised by the assessee was allowed. The principle established is that reassessment proceedings initiated without disposing of the assessee's objections to the reasons for reopening are invalid.
The Tribunal held that the loan entry was a mere paper entry and not an actual receipt of funds by the assessee. Since the assessee did not receive any cash or actual credit, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases were reflected in the trading account and corresponding sales were not disturbed, and the addition was made on an estimated basis, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Furthermore, in a similar case for AY 2009-10, the penalty was dropped.
The Tribunal held that since the purchases were reflected in the trading account and corresponding sales were not disturbed, and the addition was made on an estimated basis, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Furthermore, in a similar case for AY 2009-10, the penalty was dropped.
The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim, which is subsequently corrected, does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). It relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that penalty provisions should not be invoked without valid grounds showing factual concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investments made in shares. Therefore, the disallowance of interest under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not justified. The Tribunal also found that the administrative expenses disallowed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) were minimal. Consequently, the entire disallowance made under Section 14A was directed to be deleted. Regarding the share transactions, the Tribunal found that the Assessee had held the shares as investments and that the gains arising from their sale should be treated as capital gains (long-term or short-term) and not as business income. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Matolia, to support its findings on the genuineness of share transactions. The deletion of alleged commission expenses was also upheld. The ground regarding the addition to book profit by way of disallowance under Section 14A became redundant due to the deletion of the disallowance. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of expenses, including common expenses, service tax component, and balance reimbursement, did not attract TDS provisions. It was also noted that Crisil Limited had considered these receipts in its total income and paid the due tax. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and CIT(A) were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 39,85,563/- was not justified. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, including purchase and sale through a registered broker via banking channels and demat accounts. The AO relied on an investigation wing report without further inquiry to disprove the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal followed coordinate benches' decisions on similar facts and scrips, finding the AO had not brought material on record to disprove the genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the claim. Regarding the ad-hoc addition of Rs. 6,48,640/- as commission, since the claim of short-term capital loss was allowed, the estimated commission disallowance was deemed unjustified and allowed. For the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- under Section 68, the assessee had submitted comprehensive documentation, including the lender's ITR, confirmation, bank statements, and source of funds. The AO had not brought any contrary material to disprove the supporting documents. Therefore, the addition was held unjustified, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for the years 2001-02 to 2005-06 was invalid as the limitation period had expired before the amendment to Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. The reassessment for AY 2006-07 was also deemed invalid as the account was already taxed.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had not disputed the fact that the assessee rented out the 'Gala' and accepted a portion of the rent as a source for the cash deposit. Considering the documented rental income from AY 2014-15, 2016-17, and part of 2017-18, totaling Rs. 3,72,000/-, the Tribunal held that this amount could be considered as the source, thereby restricting the addition of unexplained cash to Rs. 1,77,500/-.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2001-02 to 2005-06 was invalid as the limitation period had expired before the amendment to Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal also noted that the account in question for AY 2006-07 had already been assessed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not sustainable. It noted that the CIT(A) had found that interest-free funds available with the assessee were Rs.164.29 Crores, while investments in shares were Rs.170.99 Crores, indicating that some borrowed capital might have been invested. However, the Tribunal ultimately directed the AO to delete the entire disallowance made under Section 14A. Regarding the gains from the sale of shares of Sulabh Engineers & Services Ltd., the Tribunal found that the transactions were genuine, supported by documentation, and occurred in the open market. It relied on judicial precedents, including the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Matolia, to hold that the shares were held as investments. Therefore, the gains should be treated as short-term capital gains/long-term capital gains, not as business income. The deletion of alleged commission expenses was upheld as the transactions were accepted as genuine. The ground regarding the addition to book profit became redundant as the Section 14A disallowance was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard by the NFAC. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the case was remanded back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had only estimated the Gross Profit on alleged non-genuine purchases without conclusive proof of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The addition was also reduced by the CIT(A). Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) on estimated income was justified.
The Tribunal decided to adjudicate the additional ground of appeal first, which concerned the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections before passing the assessment order. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. and subsequent Bombay High Court judgments in Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. and KSS Petron Private Ltd., the Tribunal held that assuming jurisdiction for reopening without first disposing of the assessee's objections by a speaking order is ultra vires. Consequently, the assessment order dated 30/03/2022, framed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, was held to be without jurisdiction and was set aside. The notice under Section 148 was also set aside. As the reassessment proceedings were quashed on procedural grounds, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to delve into the merits of the other grounds of appeal concerning the mark-up on overheads and foreign fluctuation gain. The additional ground raised by the assessee was allowed.