Loading ITAT cases…
583 orders · Page 10 of 12
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for the DVSV-2024 scheme and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to either party to seek restoration of the appeal if the DVSV-2024 settlement was not finalized.
The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based on a 'change of opinion' without any new tangible material is bad in law. Since the AO had already examined and accepted the interest expenses during the original scrutiny assessment, the reassessment proceedings were deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as a cooperative bank is a species of cooperative society. Further, interest on deposits with nationalized banks is also deductible under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is part of the society's business operations.
The Tribunal acknowledged that quasi-judicial authorities are bound by the principles of natural justice, requiring sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application on 30.12.2024, observing a statutory limitation to decide by 31.12.2024. While the assessee had responded to the notices, the CIT(E) was of the view that documentary proof of activities was lacking. The Learned DR suggested remitting the matter back to the CIT(E) to grant one more opportunity for compliance and fresh adjudication on merit. Considering this submission and the importance of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to make complete compliance and furnish all necessary documents within a stipulated period, after which the CIT(E) was to decide the application afresh on merits.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for all three assessment years. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the issue on merits regarding the treatment of the flats as a single unit had been decided in favour of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal for AY 2013-2014, where the facts were identical. The Tribunal noted that the AO's finding that Flat 17B constituted a separate unit was contrary to this earlier decision. Therefore, penalties levied based on such a finding could not be sustained. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed a discrepancy in the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order (furnishing inaccurate particulars) and the grounds for levying penalty in the penalty order (concealment of particulars). The Tribunal also noted that the AO's assessment order for AY 2010-2011 initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars, while the penalty order stated the penalty was for concealment of particulars. The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained for this reason as well. The penalties of INR 38,232/- (AY 2010-2011), INR 26,325/- (AY 2011-2012), and INR 47,086/- (AY 2012-2013) were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 144 read with Section 147 was bad in law as the assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 144 of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that registration under Section 12A had already been granted. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue of 80G registration back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh examination after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transaction. The assessee had submitted voluminous documentary evidence, including PAN, certificates of incorporation, balance sheets, and profit and loss accounts of the investors. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made additions even for investors where such documents were filed. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. and other High Court judgments, the Tribunal stated that once the assessee provides the names and identity of shareholders, the onus shifts to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO did not do enough to disprove the genuineness of the transactions after the assessee had discharged its initial onus. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made under Section 68. As the primary ground was allowed, other grounds were rendered academic. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not a fit case for remanding the matter to the CIT(A).
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] quashed the assessment order, holding that the reopening was based on incorrect facts and without proper verification. The CIT(A) also found that the assessee had consistently claimed and was allowed the deduction under Section 80IA for the jetty since AY 2007-08, and there was no change in facts or law to warrant a different view.
The Tribunal held that for private discretionary trusts whose income is chargeable at the maximum marginal rate, the surcharge must be computed with reference to the slab rates prescribed under the 'surcharge on income tax' heading in the Finance Act, not at the highest applicable rate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was required to decide the appeal on merits irrespective of the assessee's non-appearance, as per Section 250(6) of the Act. The impugned order was set aside.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] quashed the assessment order, holding that the reopening was based on incorrect facts and without proper verification. The CIT(A) also found that the assessee had consistently claimed and was allowed the deduction under Section 80IA for the jetty since AY 2007-08, and there was no change in facts or law to warrant a different view.
The Tribunal found that since the underlying quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted due to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) rendered the assessment invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A and Section 69 were unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the entire assessment was based on information and statements of third-party operators, without any tangible material on record to establish the assessee's involvement in illegal activities. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in the case of Minkal K. Doshi Vs. ITO, which dealt with the same script and allowed the exemption under Section 10(38) after finding that transactions were undertaken through banking channels and registered brokers, supported by demat accounts, and no evidence disproved the genuineness. The Tribunal also considered SEBI adjudication order which disposed of proceedings against the company without penalty. Following the principle of judicial consistency and discipline, and considering the jurisdictional High Court and Coordinate Bench decisions, the Tribunal directed the deletion of additions made under Section 69A and Section 69. Consequently, the grounds related to penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC and interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C became infructuous.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal if the challenge to the consequential assessment order fails. The Tribunal also stated that any delay in filing a fresh appeal would be considered liberally.
The Tribunal held that the delay was not deliberate and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 172 days and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the donation was made to the School of Human Genetics & Population Health (SHGPH) in FY 2013-14, and at that time, the institution had valid approval granted by the CBDT. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Company Vs. Indian Council Agricultural Research & Others, and coordinate benches' decisions in Motilal Dahyabhai Jhaveri & Sons Vs. ACIT and Unish Jewellers Vs. ACIT. These precedents established that a donor cannot be affected by the subsequent withdrawal of recognition with retrospective effect if the approval was valid and subsisting at the time the donation was made. The Tribunal found it undisputed that SHGPH had valid approval when the donation was made, and therefore, the subsequent retrospective cancellation of approval by the CBDT could not invalidate the assessee's claim for deduction. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the statement of the trustee recorded during the investigation was not on oath and relied on the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT vs. Balaram Hanumandas Charitable Trust, which referred to a Supreme Court case stating that section 133A does not empower income tax authorities to examine persons on oath, thus any admission made during such a statement has no evidentiary value by itself. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause due to incorrect email service. On merits, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained as the issue of notional rental income had been decided in favour of the assessee in a previous assessment year. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the grounds for penalty initiation and levy.
During the ITAT proceedings, the appellant presented that the CIT (Exemption) had subsequently condoned the delay in filing the audit report. In light of this development, the appellant requested to withdraw the appeal. The ITAT granted the withdrawal, thus dismissing the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that there was no evidence whatsoever to establish that any amount of cash loan was given by the assessee to the Ahuja Group during the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Tribunal noted that the only seized documents relating to cash loans pertained to Financial Year 2012-13 and earlier. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to examine the financial years in which the loan was given by the assessee to the Ahuja Group and take action, if necessary, in the relevant year. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for making the addition of Rs. 5,32,83,600 under Section 69 of the Act in the current year and saw no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that an addition under Section 69 for unexplained investment cannot be made in an assessment year if the evidence does not establish that the investment or transaction occurred in that specific year, and the AO should investigate the correct financial year for such transactions.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained. The primary reason for this decision was the ITAT's finding in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2013-2014 (ITA No. 5245/Mum/2019), which held that all three flats (Flat 16, Flat 17B, and Flat 18) constituted a single unit. The Tribunal noted that this finding was based on material on record and had not been overturned. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the issue on merits had been decided in its favour for AY 2013-14. The fact that the assessee did not prefer an appeal against the quantum additions for the assessment years under consideration would not preclude the assessee from raising these contentions in penalty proceedings. The Tribunal also noted a discrepancy between the AO's assessment order, which initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars leading to concealment, and the penalty order, which levied penalty for concealment of particulars. Therefore, the penalty of INR 38,232 for AY 2010-2011, INR 26,325 for AY 2011-2012, and INR 47,086 for AY 2012-2013 were deleted. Grounds 1 to 4 were allowed, and Ground 5 was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all relevant details, and the AO and TPO had conducted due inquiries. The existence of a bilateral APA also supported the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that for bogus purchases, the CIT(A) was correct in restricting the addition to 50% as per the decision in the sister concern's case, and the balance 50% should be reduced from Work in Progress, not added to total income. For on-money receipts, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly restricted the addition to 10% based on the assessee's admission and the principle of restricting additions when partial admission is made. Regarding unexplained cash expenditure, unexplained cash deposits, and unexplained expenditure on hotels/restaurants, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, implying that the CIT(A)'s findings were supported by material on record or that the Revenue failed to establish error. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance for penal interest on TDS shortfalls. For section 14A, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly restricted the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned, and the Revenue's reliance on CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 was not applicable in the context of the CIT(A)'s findings. The assessee's cross-objection regarding unexplained expenditure was dismissed as not pressed for AY 2009-10, and for AY 2012-13, it was dismissed on merits, aligning with the decision for AY 2011-12.
The Tribunal consolidated the appeals and cross-objections. For the issue of bogus purchases (Ground No. (i) of Revenue's appeal), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 50% based on a decision for a sister concern. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's finding on this specific ground in the provided excerpt, but it is implied that the appeals by the Revenue were partly allowed, suggesting some modification or upholding of the CIT(A)'s order. For issues related to on-money receipts, unexplained cash expenditure, unexplained cash deposits, sale of property, hotel/restaurant expenses, and penal interest on TDS, the Tribunal found that the issues raised in the Revenue's appeal for AY 2012-13 were already considered in AY 2011-12. The Tribunal's consolidated order indicates that all Revenue appeals were partly allowed and all assessee cross-objections were dismissed. Specifically, for the assessee's cross-objection regarding additions under Section 144 read with Section 153C without incriminating documents, Ground No. 1 was not pressed and dismissed. Ground No. 2, concerning unexplained expenditure based on ITS data, was dismissed as a similar issue was decided in AY 2011-12. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of salary paid to the Director's wife, dismissing the assessee's cross-objection on this point. The operative direction for the Revenue's appeals was that they were partly allowed, and for the assessee's cross-objections, they were dismissed.
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeals, upholding some of the CIT(A)'s restrictions while also upholding certain disallowances. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed.
The Tribunal found discrepancies regarding a Rs. 10,00,000/- payment and the sources of Rs. 51.55 lakhs investment. It held that the CIT(A) failed to conduct necessary inquiries and therefore set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the issue of bogus purchases needed to be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of documentary evidence. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the AO had mechanically invoked the provision without recording dissatisfaction, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the deeds of conveyance for the sale of lands were executed on 30.12.2010, stamp duty was paid on the same date, and possession was handed over to the purchaser on 30.12.2010. The assessee also acknowledged receipt of full consideration on that date. Therefore, all essential formalities were completed in FY 2010-11, relevant to AY 2011-12. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *Kanwar Raj Singh* and the Co-ordinate Bench's decision in *Romell Housing LLP*, which held that a registered document operates from the date of execution, not registration. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) erred in relying on *Suraj Lamps & Industries (P.) Ltd.*, as that case dealt with the validity of transfers via GPA, not the operative date of a registered deed. Consequently, the addition under Section 50C could only be made in AY 2011-12, not AY 2012-13. The addition made by the AO was deleted. As relief was granted on merits, the grounds challenging the reopening under Section 147 were rendered academic and left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report is a procedural lapse and should not deny the assessee its rightful exemption under Section 11, especially when the assessment is still pending before the appellate authorities. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 11 of the Act, in cases of violation of Section 13(1)(c) or 13(2), should be restricted only to the amount of funds diverted or applied in violation of these sections. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Audyogika Shikshan Mandal (supra), which followed Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions (supra) and other High Court decisions. These precedents established that the denial of exemption under Section 11 should not extend to the entire income of the trust but only to the quantum of income diverted to specified persons. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not followed the prescribed procedure under Rule 46A by not calling for a remand report from the AO before examining additional evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-examine the matter and restrict the disallowance under Section 11 strictly to the quantum of income diverted or applied for the benefit of specified persons under Section 13(3). The assessee was to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the set-off of short-term capital losses against short-term capital gains is permissible under Section 70(2) of the Act, provided the capital gains are computed in a similar manner. The Tribunal found no difference in the computation mechanism of short-term capital gains and short-term capital losses, whether subjected to STT or not, as Sections 48 to 55 of the Act lay down the computation mechanism and not the rate of tax. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to set off its short-term capital losses against short-term capital gains. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rungamatee Trexim and other coordinate bench decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the set-off of short-term capital loss against short-term capital gain. Regarding the erroneous computation of total income and tax, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had added short-term capital gains already considered by the assessee. The AO was directed to correctly compute the income and levy tax as per law. The issue of penalty under Section 270A was held to be premature and dismissed. Grounds 1 to 4 of the assessee's appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 11 of the Act should be restricted only to the quantum of income diverted or applied in violation of Section 13(1)(c) or 13(2). The issue was restored to the AO for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that the sanction for reopening the assessment was obtained from an incorrect authority, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue on merit were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid was a business expenditure and the adjustment made by the assessee was tax neutral. The disallowance by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the issue of bogus purchases needed to be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of documentary evidence. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the AO had mechanically invoked the provision without recording dissatisfaction, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal. The application was allowed, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the internal TNMM is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the transactions. It found that the differences cited by the AO/TPO were not material for TNMM, especially considering the previous Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) which also accepted internal TNMM. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's benchmarking and deleted the transfer pricing adjustment.
The Tribunal held that the penalties incurred by the assessee were not in the nature of offences or acts prohibited by law, but rather arose from contractual terms in the normal course of business. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal found the disallowance unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and the Tribunal itself, with no evidence presented. The AO and CIT(A) acted within the bounds of law in treating unexplained depositions as turnover. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that in the case of Private Discretionary Trusts, surcharge has to be computed with reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading 'surcharge on income tax'.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, they failed to pay the disputed tax. This failure triggered Section 4(6)(b) of the Act, which states that a declaration shall be presumed never to have been made if the declarant violates any conditions or acts contrary to the undertaking. Consequently, all proceedings and claims withdrawn under Section 4, and all consequences under the Income-tax Act, are deemed to have been revived. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The specific grounds concerning the additions made by the AO and TDS credit were not decided on merits by the Tribunal as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had two PANs and the assessment was made on a PAN which was subsequently surrendered for cancellation. The cash deposit remained unexplained by the assessee. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to consider the explanation for the cash deposit.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable as the assessee had declared revised gross receipts and paid tax on them. However, the ground related to the validity of reopening was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that subscription fees for CAS and PUBS divisions do not qualify as royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA. The receipts were for copyrighted articles, not for the use or right to use copyright.
The Tribunal held that flats held as stock-in-trade, even if unsold, cannot be taxed under the head 'income from house property'. Income derived from such stock is to be treated as 'business income'.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the parties to seek restoration if the DTVSV-2024 application is not settled.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing sufficient documentary evidence. Mere discrepancies in documents submitted by parties, or non-response to notices, cannot render purchases bogus if the assessee has otherwise substantiated them.
The Tribunal held that the maintenance and training services provided by the assessee did not make technical skills or knowledge available to the Indian customers, and therefore did not constitute FTS under Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA. The services were considered part of the software sub-licensing agreement.
The Tribunal held that the maintenance and training services provided by the assessee did not make technical skills or knowledge available to the Indian customers, and therefore did not constitute FTS under Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA. The services were considered part of the software sub-licensing agreement.