Loading ITAT cases…
645 orders · Page 7 of 13
The Tribunal held that for computing capital gains under Section 50, the Written Down Value (WDV) as on 31.03.2003 should be used, and notional depreciation from subsequent years should not be considered. It also allowed the set-off of brought forward long-term capital loss against the short-term capital gain and confirmed the tax rate applicable to long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the issue on merits, having dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance and failure to discharge onus. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the initial allotment letter and part payment made in 2011 should be considered as the agreement date, as per the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x), given the change in property due to development regulations. The stamp duty valuation on the earlier date should be considered.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application was premature as the assessee had a bona fide reason for non-compliance and was not given adequate opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the denial of TDS credit solely based on its absence in the assessee's Form 26AS was inequitable, especially since the credit was not granted to the trust either. The AO was directed to verify and allow the TDS credit.
The Tribunal, upon perusing the assessee's application, deemed it fit to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the settlement under the DTVSV scheme was not finalized.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's gross profit for the year was 3.67%. Following a Co-ordinate Bench decision, the AO was directed to restrict the addition to 2.33% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the gross profit already declared.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law. It found no evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
The Tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds, as the disallowance was included in the final assessment order u/s 143(3). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a fresh adjudication on the merits of the addition, providing the assessee due opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed twice. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the income reflected in Form 26AS for AY 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 was offered to tax. If confirmed, the AO was to recompute the taxable income for AY 2012-2013 by reducing the already offered interest income and grant corresponding TDS credit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and sought to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal with liberty to seek revival if the VSVS application did not become final.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of repair expenses due to lack of proper documentation and violation of Section 40A(3). The valuation by the DVO was sustained, and the claimed purchase of a shop was deemed to be an arrangement to avoid capital gains tax due to unregistered sale deed and lack of proper consideration payment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a history of trading in shares and had declared business income in previous years. The purchase of shares was made through banking channels, and the assessee had sufficient funds. Therefore, the additions made under Section 68 and Section 69A were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the authorities below had not considered relevant CBDT Circulars. The AO is directed to verify the demonetised cash deposit considering the applicable circulars and the assessee is to furnish depositor details.
The Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) made an adjustment of INR 5,26,54,886 to the total income of the assessee. The assessee contested various aspects of the assessment, including the validity of the notice and the calculation of capital gains. The assessee's appeal was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn due to opting for the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for resolution under the Mutual Agreed Procedure (MAP), and the Competent Authorities of both countries had agreed to resolve the dispute. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the additions sustained by the Coordinate Bench were based purely on estimation, and it is a settled legal principle that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made on an estimate basis. Finding the lower authorities' decision to uphold penalties flawed despite partial relief and the estimation basis, the ITAT deleted the penalties levied under both Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAB for all assessment years.
The Tribunal observed that the additions sustained by the Coordinate Bench were based purely on estimation, and it is a settled legal principle that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made on an estimate basis. Finding the lower authorities' decision to uphold penalties flawed despite partial relief and the estimation basis, the ITAT deleted the penalties levied under both Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAB for all assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 10B was less than 365 days and referred to CBDT circulars allowing condonation of such delays for charitable institutions. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and verify the deduction claimed.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 67 before filing the return is directory and not mandatory. The Tribunal noted that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) overrides the Act and Rules, and non-compliance with a procedural provision should not lead to denial of FTC.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's gross profit for the year was 3.67%. Following a Co-ordinate Bench decision, the AO was directed to restrict the addition to 2.33% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering the gross profit already declared.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently mentioned the wrong section and lacked a proper opportunity to be heard. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant final approval if otherwise eligible, ensuring no break in benefits.
The Tribunal held that the Public Relation Expenses issue is recurring and has been decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench in its own case for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09, citing BASF India Ltd v/s ADIT. The Tribunal found no distinguishable material to deviate from this precedent and upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue's ground on this issue was dismissed. Regarding the assessee's cross-objection on DDT and DTAA, both parties agreed that the issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by the Special Bench decision in DCIT v/s Total Oil India Private Ltd. Therefore, the cross-objection was dismissed. The appeals for AY 2015-16 were decided mutatis mutandis based on the decision for AY 2014-15. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 54 days, finding that the assessee had made out a reasonable cause and that the delay was not attributable to them. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits.
The Tribunal held that failure to furnish reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee before its completion renders the reassessment order bad in law. Accordingly, the additional ground was admitted and the proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the disallowance of the principal amount of the alleged bogus loan transactions was still pending before the CIT(A). It held that disallowing interest on such loans without analyzing the genuineness of the principal amount would be premature.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect. The assessee had submitted that the actual tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law. It found no evidence of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed when the assessee voluntarily discloses additional income to buy peace, especially when the survey's process of detecting concealed income was not complete before the revised return was filed. The tribunal also noted that penalty proceedings for concealment and inaccurate particulars are distinct and cannot be clubbed without proper notice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence before the Assessing Officer due to the address discrepancy. Therefore, additional evidence ought to have been admitted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee to move an application for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal observed that the additions sustained by the Coordinate Bench were based purely on estimation, and it is a settled legal principle that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made on an estimate basis. Finding the lower authorities' decision to uphold penalties flawed despite partial relief and the estimation basis, the ITAT deleted the penalties levied under both Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAB for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147. The CIT(A) found that the AO had received specific information from the investigation wing regarding cash loans, applied his mind to this information, recorded reasons for reopening, and obtained necessary approval. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee did not file a return in response to the Section 148 notice and did not request the reasons recorded during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s observation that statutory requirements for reopening were fulfilled, citing cases like Yogendrakumar Gupta, Bright Star Syntex (P.) Ltd., and others. Regarding the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/-, the Tribunal noted that the grounds of appeal did not contain specific arguments on merits, and the CIT(A) had upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal found that the grounds related to the AO not adjudicating specific issues were not properly pressed or argued before it. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the application for condonation of delay along with the affidavit. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues on merits after considering the evidence and granting an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the Public Relation Expenses, including community development and other public expenses, were allowable. It followed the decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09, which allowed similar expenses. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from this precedent, especially as the issue was recurring and the facts and law remained unchanged. Regarding payments to BASF Asia Pacific Service Centre, Malaysia, the Tribunal noted that the AO had disallowed these under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS. However, the CIT(A) allowed these expenses. The judgment does not explicitly detail the CIT(A)'s reasoning or the Tribunal's final decision on this specific point, but the overall dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on this ground implies it was decided in favor of the assessee. For Product Registration expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the precedent set in ACIT Vs. Sanofi Synthelabo (India) Ltd., which held such expenses as revenue in nature and not capital. The assessee's cross objections regarding DDT were dismissed, respectfully following the Special Bench decision in DCIT v/s Total Oil India Private Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was validly levied as the additions were on account of bogus purchases, and only the profit element was added, indicating concealment of income. The contention that the penalty was levied on estimated profits was rejected.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal acknowledged the error was inadvertent and, considering the specific facts, set aside the impugned order. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Exemptions) for a fresh decision, with directions to treat the application as filed under Section 80G(5)(iii)(B) instead of 80G(5)(iv)(B).
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting both additions made by the AO. It found the interest expenses genuine as no unexplained credit was established under Section 68 in prior years and the loans were repaid. Regarding the interest income, it held that since the income crystallized and TDS was paid after the return filing date for AY 2015-16, its declaration in AY 2016-17 was appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted independent enquiries and relied heavily on search and seizure information without establishing a direct nexus with the assessee. The repayment of loans was also found to be well before the scrutiny assessment. Relying on jurisdictional High Court precedent, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The ITAT found that the assessee's error in claiming both depreciation and capital expenditure was bonafide, with no malafide intention, and did not result in any tax loss to the Revenue as the assessee remained in an overall deficit. Following a similar precedent, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty under Section 270A was warranted.
The Tribunal, after perusing ledger accounts, found that the impugned loans were indeed taken in FY 2016-17 (AY 2017-18). Consequently, it held that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act were not applicable for AY 2018-19, and the addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal, following the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sudhir S. Mehta and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hitesh S. Mehta vs. DCIT, held that the AO could not provide specific information/details collected from companies on the basis of which additions were made, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court had specifically held that the AO must confront the assessee with material obtained from third parties or own sources to enable the assessee to explain its correctness or unreliability. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 1,20,79,176/-. Ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal for AY 1993-94 was allowed. Ground No. 2 was dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 3 regarding interest expense deduction was allowed, directing the AO to allow the claim. Ground No. 4 concerning interest u/s 234A & 234B was directed to be levied as per law up to the date of filing the original return. The assessee's appeal for AY 1993-94 was partly allowed. For AY 1992-93, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds concerning profit on unexplained sale of shares and dividend/interest income, following the decision in AY 1993-94. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order in these respects. The ratio decidendi is that additions cannot be made on the basis of information not provided to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice, and that the AO must provide all material relied upon.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal applications filed by the assessee. Since the Departmental Representative raised no objections, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: For AY 1992-93, regarding the addition of Rs. 1,20,79,176/- (related to unexplained investments and share transactions, which appears to be the subject of Ground 1 of the assessee's appeal, though the amount differs from Ground 2), the Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in *Hitesh Mehta*, directed the AO to delete the impugned addition. The reasoning was that the AO could not provide specific information/details collected from third parties, violating principles of natural justice, and that the assessee was not confronted with the material used for additions. The ratio is that additions cannot be made without providing the assessee with the material obtained from third parties and giving them an opportunity to explain. For AY 1993-94, regarding the revenue's Ground 1 concerning the restriction of addition on account of profit on unexplained sale of shares, the Tribunal dismissed this ground, referring to the detailed discussion in the assessee's appeal for AY 1992-93. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow the claim of deduction of interest expense for AY 1993-94, referring to a similar issue decided for AY 1992-93. The Tribunal directed the AO to levy interest u/s 234A & 234B as per relevant provisions up to the date of filing the original return of income. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's Ground 2 regarding dividend/interest income, referring to the decision for AY 1992-93. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the issue of rejection of books of accounts (Ground 1 of assessee's AY 1992-93 appeal) as it was not pressed.
The Tribunal considered the withdrawal applications filed by the assessee. Since the Departmental Representative raised no objections, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for the one-day delay in depositing the employee contribution for September, citing power failure due to underground cable fault. Therefore, no disallowance should be made.
The Tribunal held that for AY 1992-93, Ground No. 1 (rejection of books) was allowed. Ground No. 2 (addition of Rs. 5,10,025/- on account of unexplained investments) was deleted, following the decision in Sudhir S. Mehta, where the AO's failure to provide specific information and violation of natural justice were noted, and the principle from Hitesh S. Mehta upheld by the Bombay High Court was applied. Ground No. 3 (addition of Rs. 40,385/- on account of unexplained receipts) was dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 4 (addition of Rs. 77,451/- on account of unexplained receipts in bank account) was allowed, directing deletion of the addition. Ground No. 5 (addition on account of profit from partnership firm) was allowed. Ground No. 6 (deduction of interest expense) was allowed, directing the AO to allow the claim. Ground No. 7 (enhancement of income by Rs. 20,83,911/- on account of difference in balance) was allowed, directing deletion of the addition. Ground No. 8 (interest u/s 220(2)) was directed to be levied as per law up to the date of filing the original return. For AY 1993-94, the revenue's Ground 1 (addition on account of profit on unexplained sale of shares) was dismissed, following the decision in the assessee's appeal. Revenue's Ground 2 (relief on account of dividend/interest income) was also dismissed. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,20,79,176/- in relation to unexplained sale of shares, following the coordinate bench and jurisdictional High Court. The assessee's appeal for AY 1993-94 was partly allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the DDT refund claim, affirming that DTAA provisions do not apply to DDT paid by domestic companies as per a Special Bench decision. However, the issues regarding the levy of interest under Section 115P and the non-grant of DDT credit were restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification and re-computation, granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the source of investment for the property purchase through the partnership firm, making the addition of Rs. 8,09,600/- unsustainable and deleted it. Regarding the deduction difference of Rs. 41,664/-, the Tribunal observed that the Assessee is entitled to statutory deductions, and the addition was deleted subject to verification of documents by the AO.
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. Commissioner's order was ex-parte and not based on proper consideration of documents or explanation due to the Assessee's non-compliance. To ensure a just decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner to decide afresh after providing the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.