Loading ITAT cases…
667 orders · Page 2 of 14
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was aggrieved by the ex-parte order and restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, ensuring the demand subsisted and the VSVS application remained valid as per CBDT Circular No.19 of 2024. Since the demand was settled under the VSVS scheme, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was aggrieved by the ex-parte order and restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was aggrieved by the ex-parte order and restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. If verification confirms that the disallowances were already made in the return, the addition to that extent should be deleted to avoid double addition. The issue regarding interest under Section 234C was also restored.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal distinguished between cases where goods linked to bogus bills are connected to genuine sales (allowing for a percentage-based disallowance representing grey market procurement benefits) and cases where no such linkage or inventory records exist (warranting full disallowance). For the assessment year in question, the assessee fell into the latter category, having failed to substantiate the linkage between bogus purchases and actual sales using inventory records or a stock register. Therefore, the entire amount of bogus purchases was liable to be disallowed, setting aside the CIT(A)'s finding and sustaining the AO's order. The addition for unexplained bank deposits was also dealt with. The Tribunal's decision on this point is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it implies a reversal of the CIT(A)'s partial relief. The operative direction is that the assessee's appeals are dismissed, and the Revenue's appeals are allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in shifting the accounting method and making additions without considering the assessee's consistent cash basis accounting. It also found that the disallowance of payments to related parties was not justified as there was no tax evasion, and incentive payments to employees were contractual. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society on surplus funds deposited with banks is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities to its members and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and co-ordinate benches.
The Tribunal held that payments for alternative accommodation/hardship allowance are not 'consideration' as defined under Section 194-IC of the Income Tax Act. Such payments are compensation for hardship due to dispossession, not part of the share in the project.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had taken a different stand compared to when granting registration u/s 12A for the same activities. The expenses were considered minor and within the MOA's scope, thus the rejection of the 80G application was not justified.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The case was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was aggrieved by the ex-parte order and restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was aggrieved by the ex-parte order and restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the cash payments were made in the financial year corresponding to assessment year 2018-19, not the assessment year under consideration (2013-14). Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in substituting the Net Asset Value (NAV) method for the dividend discounting method used by the independent valuer. No fundamental flaw was identified in the valuation report, and the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without delving into the merits of the case and that the assessee did not provide sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the first appellate authority.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court had directed the condonation of delay in filing the return of income and Form 10-IC and also directed the deletion of variations made in the intimation. Consequently, the AO was directed to process the return as per law.
The Tribunal addressed the issue of cash deposits of ₹2,58,78,235 treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The AO had made this addition because the assessee failed to adequately explain the source of the large cash deposits during the demonetization period, citing late filing of tax returns, late payment of taxes, a substantial cash balance as of November 8, 2016, and variations in cash flow. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s finding. The Tribunal noted that the AO had specifically pointed out the lack of PAN of landlords and premises addresses for rent expenses, which prevented verification. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without proper verification, partly on the grounds of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have sought this information or directed the assessee to provide it during the remand proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and restored the matter to the AO for verification, directing the assessee to provide complete details of addresses and PANs of property owners. Regarding the rent expenses disallowance of ₹54,63,632 for AY 2018-19, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s deletion based on a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the AO had pointed out the lack of verification details for rent expenses. The Tribunal restored this issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides the necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in shifting the accounting method and making additions without considering the assessee's consistent cash basis accounting. It also found that the disallowance of payments to related parties was not justified as there was no tax evasion, and incentive payments to employees were contractual. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions.
The Tribunal held that the revised Memorandum of Association, executed after the CIT(E)'s order, was not considered. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after considering the revised MOA and objects.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on High Court judgments and CBDT circulars. It was held that amortization of premium on securities held for maintaining statutory liquidity ratio is allowable as revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal observed that the notice to the assessee was returned undelivered and proceeded ex-parte. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly re-computed the accommodation entries and affirmed the reduced addition.
The tribunal dismissed the ground related to ESIC and LWF, following a Supreme Court decision. For the written-back liabilities, the tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification as the assessee claimed the amounts were already included in total income.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The proceedings were initiated on 27/11/2018, and the penalty order should have been passed by 31/05/2019.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the difference was due to an omitted credit of stamp duty refund and was related to FY 2010-11. Therefore, it could not be assessed in AY 2014-15, leading to the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of ₹2,58,78,235/- made by the AO on account of cash credit under section 68. The Tribunal noted that the AO had pointed out deficiencies in substantiating the claim, such as the late filing of tax returns and late payment of taxes, which suggested potential manipulation of sales to introduce unaccounted money. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the rent expense disallowance of ₹54,63,632/-. While acknowledging the CIT(A)'s observation regarding the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal found that the AO had specifically pointed out the lack of complete addresses for the leased staff rooms and the PAN of the owners in the remand report. The Tribunal felt it appropriate to set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and restore the matter to the AO, directing the assessee to provide the complete details of the properties and the owners' PAN and addresses for verification. The appeals for AY 2017-18 were dismissed, and the appeal for AY 2018-19 was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below had not considered the contentions regarding the property's low valuation due to its location, old construction, and lack of amenities, nor the aspect of joint ownership. The Tribunal found that the differential amount should be taxed proportionately in the hands of both joint owners, not entirely in one hand.
The Tribunal held that if the GST refund is added to the taxable income, the corresponding GST expenses should also be charged to the profit and loss account, making the exercise tax neutral. Since the assessee consistently followed a method of accounting, the AO was directed to delete the addition.
The Tribunal noted that there had been a delay in depositing the employees' contributions towards EPF & ESI in some months. For some months, the delay was only one day, which the assessee claimed was due to technical glitches on the EPFO portal. The assessee also stated that the due date for payment in January 2017 was extended by the EPFO from January 15th to January 20th, 2017. The Tribunal found that these facts and contentions required verification. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO for requisite verification. The AO was directed to consider the extension of the due date by the competent authority for each month where a delay occurred in depositing the employees' contributions towards EPF & ESIC and to recompute the disallowance accordingly. The assessee was also directed to submit evidence supporting its claims regarding technical glitches and the extension of due dates. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were not applicable as the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search that directly related to the assessee's transactions outside the SVP Group. Therefore, additions made without such material were deleted.
The Departmental Representative submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, and therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn. The Authorized Representative did not object.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the linkage between bogus purchases and actual sales using inventory records, leading to the disallowance of entire bogus purchases. The addition for unexplained bank deposits was also sustained in line with previous findings.
The Tribunal addressed two primary issues. Firstly, concerning the addition of ₹2,58,78,235/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s deletion. The AO had disallowed the addition after allowing the opening cash balance, citing reasons such as late filing of VAT and service tax returns, late payment of liabilities, a large cash balance prior to demonetization, and variations in cash flows. The assessee claimed the cash was generated from business activities. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without properly verifying the information. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide complete details of the properties/rooms leased for staff, along with the PAN and address of the owners for verification. Secondly, regarding the disallowance of rent expenses of ₹54,63,632/-, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s deletion based on the principle of natural justice. The CIT(A) had noted that the AO shifted from proposing disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) to disallowance for lack of genuineness without giving the assessee an opportunity. However, the Tribunal observed that in the remand report, the AO specifically pointed out the lack of address and PAN of the owners, making verification impossible. The Tribunal felt the CIT(A) should have called for this information or directed the assessee to provide it to the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and restored the matter to the AO for verification of the staff room lease details, including PAN and address of owners. The grounds related to rent expenses were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were not applicable as the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search that directly related to the assessee's transactions outside the SVP Group. Therefore, additions made without such material were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition for non-genuine purchases was based on an incorrect factual premise, making the penalty not leviable. The other addition was restricted on an ad-hoc basis without concealment or inaccurate particulars, thus the penalty was not leviable on this count as well.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Considering this submission, the appeal was dismissed, with the liberty to reinstate if the scheme application is not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without proper inquiry or verification, especially concerning the remaining 8 creditors for whom no addition was made. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be correct, and the AO was directed to conduct a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income and that the explanation to Section 14A is prospective. Regarding contract expenses, the CIT(A)'s finding that the AO failed to provide evidence was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to properly consider the assessee's explanation and that the penalty was levied on a different charge (concealment of income) than what was initiated (furnishing inaccurate particulars).
The Tribunal restored the issue of bogus purchases back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to present additional evidence which was not filed before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to restore the matter to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee is to be given a fresh opportunity to present all documents and details, and the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the original assessment order was replaced by a set-aside order, rendering the penalty order based on the original assessment infructuous. Consequently, the appeal against the penalty was also infructuous.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were not applicable as the assessment year was unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search that directly related to the assessee's transactions outside the SVP Group. Therefore, additions made without such material were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in shifting the accounting method and making additions without considering the assessee's consistent cash basis accounting. It also found that the disallowance of payments to related parties was not justified as there was no tax evasion, and incentive payments to employees were contractual. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of these additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the linkage between bogus purchases and actual sales using inventory records, leading to the disallowance of entire bogus purchases. The addition for unexplained bank deposits was also sustained in line with previous findings.
The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2009-10, regarding bogus purchases, the assessee fell into the category where the entire amount of bogus purchases should be disallowed because the assessee failed to substantiate the linkage between the goods reported in bogus purchases and actual sales using day-to-day inventory records or a stock register. The AO noted no stock register was produced. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO's order was sustained, allowing the Revenue's grounds. Regarding unexplained bank deposits/credits, the Tribunal followed its finding for assessment year 2009-10 and decided the grounds mutatis mutandis for both assessment years. The operative direction was that the assessee's appeals were dismissed, and the Revenue's appeals were allowed. The issue of whether the entire amount of bogus purchases should be added was decided in favour of the Revenue, and the issue of restricting the addition of bank deposits to 2% was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that since the sale of part of the shares in an earlier assessment year (AY 2014-15) was accepted as genuine long-term capital gain, the remaining shares sold in the current year should also be treated similarly, as they were acquired and sold under the same conditions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been non-compliant throughout the proceedings before both the AO and the CIT(A). However, to adhere to principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue on merits.
The Tribunal held that payments for alternative accommodation/hardship allowance are not 'consideration' as defined under Section 194-IC of the Income Tax Act. Such payments are compensation for hardship due to dispossession, not part of the share in the project.
The Tribunal held that most of the expenses were not personal in nature. It restored the matter to the AO for verification of documents and to check if similar expenses were allowed in past years.