Loading ITAT cases…
630 orders · Page 2 of 13
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that mere information about client code modifications, without a direct link to escaped income, constitutes suspicion and not a reason to believe.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of cash withdrawals for telescoping benefit and by furnishing loan confirmations and RTGS details for loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, and the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, violating Section 149(1)(b). Furthermore, the approval for the notice was obtained from an authority not specified under Section 151(ii) for cases beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's sufficient cause. Considering the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment, allowing one more opportunity to present the case with supporting evidence.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for resolution under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and submitted the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient and reasonable cause for filing the appeal belatedly with the CIT(A), as the delay was within 30 days of receiving the assessment order. The delay was condoned, and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had substantiated the source of investment in the property, with the majority sourced from a home loan and past savings.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of cash withdrawals for telescoping benefit and by furnishing loan confirmations and RTGS details for loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that the loans were genuine, citing the Income Tax Settlement Commission's findings and the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance of interest and Section 14A expenses were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the said amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- was already offered for taxation and considered in the combined cash flow statement of the Swastik group, which was accepted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). Therefore, no further addition was required in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions. The appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that additions made to the assessee's income from the foreign bank account could not be sustained as they represented maturity of deposits from the father's savings. Consequently, penalties levied on these additions were also deleted.
For AY 1997-1998 (Quantum Appeal): The Tribunal held that the addition of INR 2,63,760/- (part of the total addition) was a protective assessment. Since the income was already offered to tax by the assessee's father and the addition was not a result of investigation, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was contrary to the law laid down in Lalji Haridas v. ITO. Therefore, the addition was deleted. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was respectfully followed. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. For AY 2001-2002 (Quantum Appeal): The Tribunal observed that the credits in the foreign bank account were 'Fiduciary Deposit Repayments', supporting the assessee's stand that these were maturity proceeds of deposits made from her father's earnings. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the addition of INR 96,80,005/- could not be sustained, albeit for different reasons. The assessee's cross-objections were allowed, and the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2001-2002 (Penalty Appeal): Since the quantum addition was confirmed to be deleted, the penalty levied in respect of it could not be sustained. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 1997-1998 (Penalty Appeal): The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2008-2009 (Quantum and Penalty Appeals): The appeals were partly allowed. The specific findings and reasoning for this partial allowance are not detailed in the provided extract.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the error in selecting the clause was inadvertent and procedural, not mala fide, and should not result in denial of the statutory benefit. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for rectification and reconsideration.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and Special Bench decisions, held that MTM losses on forex derivatives are allowable as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also considered other grounds related to transfer pricing, disallowance of expenses, bad debts, and interest.
The Tribunal held that additions made to the assessee's income regarding foreign bank account transactions were not sustainable, especially when the source of funds was the father's savings and maturity of deposits. Consequently, penalties levied on these additions were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the first appellate authority, adhering to principles of natural justice. The issue was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the property was acquired prior to 1981, and thus, the AO had to consider the value as of April 1, 1981. The sale occurred on April 26, 2011, with a sale consideration of Rs. 81,00,000 for the property, shared equally among three brothers. The Tribunal noted that the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Gaurangiben S Shodhan and the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Pooja Prints held that for transactions during the financial year 2011-12 (relevant for AY 2012-13), the amended provisions of Section 55A(a) would not apply, and the erstwhile provisions would guide the assessment. Under the erstwhile provisions, a reference to the Valuation Officer was permissible only if the AO was of the opinion that the value claimed by the assessee was less than its Fair Market Value. If the value claimed was more than the FMV, a reference was not permissible. The Tribunal found that the AO was not empowered to refer the matter to the DVO even under the erstwhile provisions prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2012. Therefore, the reference to the DVO and the subsequent addition based on the DVO's report obtained in the co-owner's case were not legally sustainable. The assessee succeeded on this legal plea. The grounds of appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was invalid as it did not strike out the irrelevant limb (concealment or inaccurate particulars), violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was indeed defective for not striking out the irrelevant limb. Following the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mohammad Farhan Shaikh (supra), the Tribunal ruled that this is not a mere procedural defect but vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. The notice must clearly inform the assessee of the grounds for the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty provisions, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly. The AO's failure to strike out the irrelevant limb amounts to an omnibus show cause notice, indicating non-application of mind and causing prejudice to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice and being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. The revenue did not provide contradictory facts to disprove prejudice. Therefore, the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was held to be bad in law and not sustainable. The first ground of appeal was allowed, directing the deletion of the penalty. The other grounds on merits were rendered academic.
The Tribunal observed that the NFAC's order was not a speaking order and failed to consider the appellant's arguments and prior ITAT directions. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that provisions for post closure and pit covering expenses are allowable deductions, consistently following its own previous decisions and those of higher courts. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim based on these precedents.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for MTM losses on forex derivatives, relying on Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents. It held that such losses are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) when consistently accounted for as per mercantile principles and the nature of the transaction is revenue in nature.
The Tribunal held that additions made to the assessee's income regarding foreign bank account transactions were not sustainable, especially when the source of funds was the father's savings and maturity of deposits. Consequently, penalties levied on these additions were also deleted.
The ITAT held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of application of income under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found no dispute on the facts, and the sole contention was the delay in the approval of Form 10B. The Tribunal noted that in a series of decisions, it has been held that even if Form 10B is filed during assessment proceedings, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of section 11. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The operative direction is that the appeal of the assessee is allowed, implying that the exemption under section 11 should be granted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the separate booking of expenses for Unit I and Unit II, refuting the AO's claim of misallocation. Additionally, the Tribunal found no short deduction of TDS, as the assessee had deducted tax at source on both advance and final payments, including the specified advance payments.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections by passing a speaking order, as mandated by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's present appeal, subject to a small deposit. It further held that the Commissioner erred in deciding the appeal on merits after refusing to condone the delay, citing High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on a protective basis, especially when the income was already taxed in the hands of the father. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IC was a recurring issue that had been settled in favour of the assessee by the ITAT in earlier years. The penalty was imposed mechanically and without a valid ground, as the assessee's claim was bona fide and based on previous favorable rulings.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to re-adjudicate the applications after considering the amended MOA, which now clearly indicates the intention to carry out charitable activities within India. The Assessee is to provide necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to re-adjudicate the applications after considering the amended MOA, which now clearly indicates the intention to carry out charitable activities within India. The Assessee is to provide necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO on account of purchases were not sustainable and directed their deletion. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including ledger accounts, tax invoices with delivery challans, and payments made through account payee cheques cleared from their bank accounts. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that the corresponding quantity and value of purchases were incorporated in the books of account, and the AO had accepted the corresponding sales and gross profit. The Tribunal found that the AO's entire premise for disallowance was based on information from the Sales Tax Department identifying parties as 'Hawala Operators', without bringing material on record that these parties were examined and had categorically stated that they provided accommodation bills to the assessee without making actual sales. The AO had not disturbed the trading results or rejected the books of account, and the addition was made by applying the peak of purchases or 25% of purchases on an ad-hoc basis, indicating the AO himself did not treat the entire purchases as bogus. The Tribunal concluded that the manner of addition, relying solely on information from sales tax authorities without examining the assessee's evidence, could not be sustained. The finding for AY 2009-10 was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2010-11.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on a protective basis, especially when the income was already taxed in the hands of the father. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IC was a recurring issue that had been settled in favour of the assessee by the ITAT in earlier years. The penalty was imposed mechanically and without a valid ground, as the assessee's claim was bona fide and based on previous favorable rulings.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure due to mixed funds was not justified without proper bifurcation. The loss on investment was considered a capital loss, not allowable as business loss. The addition for unrecognised sales was remanded.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of determining if M/s Shreya Life LLC, Russia, was an AE, the matter needed to be restored to the AO/TPO for de-novo verification due to insufficient evidence. For the issue of notional interest on receivables, the Tribunal allowed the grounds based on a previous decision concerning the assessee's own case and the decision in Indo American Jewellery Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 300 days in filing the appeal and also the 20-day delay before the CIT(A), considering the medical condition of the assessee and the COVID-19 pandemic extension. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh decision after the quantum appeal is decided.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure due to mixed funds was not justified without proper bifurcation. The loss on investment was considered a capital loss, not allowable as business loss. The addition for unrecognised sales was remanded.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on a protective basis, especially when the income was already taxed in the hands of the father. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the application should not have been rejected merely because the assessee selected sub-clause (ii) instead of (iii) of Section 12A(1)(ac). The CIT(E) had not provided an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the inadvertent mistake and had rejected the application on a technical ground without considering the merits. Following the decision of a coordinate bench in Rotary Charity Trust v/s CIT, Exemptions, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed him to pass a fresh order on merits after allowing the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect. The same reasoning was applied mutatis mutandis to the appeal concerning Section 80G approval, directing the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on merits after allowing the assessee to file a rectified application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, recalled the ex-parte order, and allowed the Miscellaneous Application. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the VSVS 2024 settlement.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that substantial justice is of prime importance and the explanation for the delay was justifiable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on a protective basis, especially when the income was already taxed in the hands of the father. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the present appeal, subject to a deposit. It then held that the Commissioner erred in deciding the appeal on merits after refusing to condone the delay, citing High Court precedents.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on a protective basis, especially when the income was already taxed in the hands of the father. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 43CA, introducing a tolerance band, is curative in nature and should be applied retrospectively. Since the difference between the DVO's valuation and the sale consideration was within the permissible tolerance limit, no addition under Section 43CA was warranted for the assessment year.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of income declared under presumptive taxation u/s 44AD and taxes paid thereof, considering the cash deposits as part of business turnover.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the rejection of the application based on a technical error without providing an opportunity to the assessee was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest received from co-operative banks. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 80P(2)(d) requires two conditions to be met: the income must be by way of interest or dividend earned by a co-operative society from its investments, and such investments must be with any other co-operative society. The judgment noted that the assessee is a co-operative housing society and earned interest from co-operative banks registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which qualify as co-operative societies. The Tribunal found that these conditions were satisfied. It further relied on co-ordinate bench decisions, including Ishwarbhavan CHS vs. CIT, which held that interest income derived by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the Revenue, stating that Totgars Cooperative Housing Society was decided in the context of eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and had been considered and distinguished by the Tribunal. The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. decision was found to be concerned with deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and the issue of co-operative societies investing in co-operative banks was not disturbed. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical error without granting the Assessee an opportunity to be heard, which violates principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the application.