Loading ITAT cases…
645 orders · Page 8 of 13
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously deleted identical additions in similar cases involving the assessee's sister concerns. Following this precedent, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal, considering the facts in totality and relying on the coordinate bench decision in Sudhir S. Mehta (ITA No. 417/Mum/2023), held that the AO could not provide specific information/details collected from companies on which additions were made, which is a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the Bombay High Court in Hitesh S. Mehta (ITA No. 2499 of 2013) upheld the direction to provide third-party information to the assessee for explanation, stating that failure to do so amounts to condemning without a proper hearing. Similar views were taken in other coordinate bench decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that additions based on incomplete or unverified third-party information are not justified. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the issue of unexplained investments (Ground No. 2) and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 5,10,025/-. The judgment indicates that the Tribunal considered the grievance in detail and applied principles of natural justice and established precedents. The operative direction is the deletion of the addition. The judgment does not explicitly state findings on all grounds raised by the assessee or the revenue's grounds.
The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously deleted identical additions in similar cases involving the assessee's sister concerns. Following this precedent, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that a procedural lapse should not deny legitimate TDS credit if the assessee is otherwise entitled, especially when the tax has already been deducted at source and deposited. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and grant the credit in accordance with law.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee claimed to be a non-resident unaware of the notices. Considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the AO.
The Tribunal agreed that disallowing purchases solely for not furnishing current addresses of suppliers, after several years, was not justified, especially when other documentation supported the purchases. The Tribunal also noted that an identical addition in a prior assessment year was deleted by a co-ordinate bench.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. It granted the assessee liberty to apply for restoration of the appeal if the VSVS application does not materialize or is not accepted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding the assessee's reasons plausible, bonafide, and unintentional, though insufficient. A cost of Rs. 5,500/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited with the Revenue Department. On the merits of the issue, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on account of interest income earned from co-operative banks. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in the case of Pathare Prabhu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. ITO and other coordinate benches, which held that interest earned from co-operative banks is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal noted that while co-operative banks may not be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(4), they remain co-operative societies as defined under Section 2(19) of the Act. Therefore, interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's principle in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. to adopt the construction favoring the assessee when two reasonable interpretations exist. Accordingly, the impugned order of the NFAC was set aside, and the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in dismissing the application on a mere technical ground. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the CPC's power to make disallowances under Section 143(1) was limited, adjustments for incorrect claims are permissible. It was noted that some payments for PF/ESI were made within the due date, and the disallowance for Section 36(1)(va) should be recomputed considering this. The disallowance under Section 43B was found to have been already deleted by the CPC in a rectification order.
The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition due to time constraints without waiting for the critical valuation report. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh determination, directing them to consider the valuation report.
The Tribunal held that the matter requires factual verification by the AO. The appeal was restored to the AO to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the 165-day delay in filing the appeal due to the tax advocate's ill health. It was also noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte without adequate notice to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that advancing an interest-free loan to an associate company to bail it out of financial constraints constitutes commercial expediency and is a business decision. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when no exempt income has been earned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the nature of the transaction and the source of funds, supported by corroborative documentary evidence. The reassessment proceedings and the addition made by the Assessing Officer were found to be without merit.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was an attempt to review issues that had already been considered and accepted by the AO during the reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided detailed replies and supporting evidence on each point raised by the Pr. CIT, and these were considered by the AO before passing the reassessment order dated 30/03/2022. Therefore, on most issues, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue specifically on the issue of the disallowance of Rs. 1,75,734/- on account of delayed payment of employees' contribution towards EPF/PF/ESIC under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. This finding was based on the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). Accordingly, the order of the Pr. CIT was upheld only to this limited extent, and on all other issues, it was set aside. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the issue was complex and required further verification. The Commissioner had directed the AO to exclude the purchase price from the sale price and recompute the Short Term Capital Gain (STCG). However, the assessee's claim that the STCG already reflected in Form 26AS with TDS deduction was higher than the tax liability was to be considered.
The Tribunal deleted the addition to closing stock, finding that the AO had double-counted direct expenses. However, it upheld the 100% disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as the amendment restricting disallowance to 30% is prospective from AY 2015-16, not applicable to AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was given only one day to respond to the PCIT's notice, which is insufficient. Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the PCIT for a fresh decision after considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities did not consider the facts properly. They decided to remand the issue back to the AO for an objective consideration, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that since the addition was made on an estimate basis and the revenue failed to disprove the authenticity of the purchase transactions with clinching evidence, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be levied.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. As per the submissions, the appeals were to be treated as withdrawn, subject to the application becoming final. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee has a duty to cooperate, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits, violating natural justice principles. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. As per the submissions, the appeals were to be treated as withdrawn, subject to the application becoming final. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on let-out office premises is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in its own case for AY 2005-06, and also by other relied-upon precedents. The Tribunal noted that identical issues have been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court from AY 1988-89 onwards. Therefore, the disallowance of depreciation was deleted. Regarding rural development expenses, cost of advertisement films, and taxability of sales tax subsidy, the Tribunal noted that these were recurring issues consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for various past assessment years. The Tribunal respectfully followed these consistent views and upheld the decision of the learned First Appellate Authority in deleting the disallowances and additions. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately three months, holding that there was a reasonable cause for the delay. Since the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over procedural technicalities, as laid down by the Supreme Court. On merits, the appeal was remanded to the AO for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the specific contentions raised by the assessee regarding the concept of mutuality and the non-applicability of section 43B. Regarding the denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal relied on previous decisions allowing such deductions for cooperative societies.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's ground regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148 and the consequent order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was not maintainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed any return of income under Section 139(1) and filed a nil return only upon receiving the notice under Section 148. The AO made additions based on credit entries in the bank account, which were linked to the alleged escaped income as per the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Sun Engineering Ltd. to explain that 'escaped assessment' includes non-assessment and under-assessment, and that reassessment applies when an assessment has already been made but there is reason to believe there is under-assessment. The Tribunal found that the present case involved assessment for the first time under Section 147, distinguishing it from cases where an assessment was already made. Therefore, Ground No. 3 was dismissed. Regarding Ground No. 4, concerning the merits of the addition of Rs. 48,88,000, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided supporting evidence for the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions related to the credit entries. In the interest of justice, this issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for necessary verification based on evidence to be filed by the assessee, with a direction to grant a proper opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also noted that the company was struck off and dissolved, suggesting that the director or members could move the National Company Law Tribunal for restoration under Section 252 of the Companies Act, 2013. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application did not materialize.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, which was accepted and a certificate was issued. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, which was accepted and a certificate was issued. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the notice under Section 148, which was allowed in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal filed before the Tribunal was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the fabrication charges received by the assessee for refurbishing bushings are not taxable as FTS in India. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years, finding that the services did not fall under the definition of FTS under the DTAA.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) could have verified the remaining Rs. 30 lacs which was part of the same financial transaction, the addition made by the CIT(A) was not permissible without issuing a notice under Section 251(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) did not follow the due process of law by not issuing the required notice before enhancing the assessment.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. However, in this case, the disallowance made by the AO did not exceed the total exempt income, hence it was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed as infructuous due to a mistaken identity. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the Addl./JCIT(A) to be considered on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and without jurisdiction. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024 (VSVS-2024) with the intention to settle the dispute. The assessee had submitted Form No. 1 and deposited the requisite amount of tax. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the grounds of appeal concerning Section 14A and Rule 8D disallowance, as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. As per the submissions, the appeals were to be treated as withdrawn, subject to the application becoming final. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and without jurisdiction. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation of Rs. 35 Crores received by the assessee is a capital receipt and hence, not chargeable to tax. The reasoning was that the assessee firm individually did not have any right over the disputed land; the landlord, Estate Investments Pvt. Ltd., always retained the rights. The assessee had acquired tenancy rights from individuals who had fraudulently transferred them. Since the assessee was defrauded, it filed various suits. The compensation was paid in pursuance of a consent term filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby the assessee withdrew its 'right to sue'. The Tribunal reasoned that the 'right to sue' is a capital asset, and its relinquishment for compensation constitutes a capital receipt. Therefore, the entire compensation of Rs. 35 Crores was held to be not taxable. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal did not go into the allowability of expenses as the primary issue of the nature of receipt was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to adjudicate all grounds together as they were interrelated. Regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148, the judgment does not explicitly state a finding on the DIN issue or the jurisdiction of the JAO. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had discharged its onus by placing all relevant details and evidence before the authorities, including contract notes, demat statements, and bank statements, demonstrating that the transactions were fair and transparent. The Tribunal also observed that some shares remained in the assessee's account. The Tribunal took note of the fact that statements recorded by the investigation wing were not provided to the assessee, and an opportunity to cross-examine was not given. Citing decisions from the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court, which held that if an assessee discharges their onus by submitting relevant documentation and the transactions are through the stock exchange with payments made through banking channels, the exemption under Section 10(38) is eligible, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had discharged its onus. Therefore, the addition made on account of LTCG was directed to be deleted. Consequently, the addition on account of commission paid on this LTCG would also not be sustained. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in similar cases where share transactions were conducted through the stock exchange and supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal found no perversity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn as the assessee had settled the outstanding demand under the VSV 2024 scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the appeal in an appropriate circumstance.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted due inquiries and verified the stock valuation. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. As per the submissions, the appeals were to be treated as withdrawn, subject to the application becoming final. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the specific contentions raised by the assessee regarding the concept of mutuality and the non-applicability of section 43B. Regarding the denial of deduction under section 80P(2)(d), the Tribunal relied on previous decisions allowing such deductions for cooperative societies.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide specific defects in the assessee's books of account to justify the rejection under Section 145(3) of the Act. Relying on previous decisions with identical facts, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made by estimating the profit at 1% of the turnover.