Loading ITAT cases…
583 orders · Page 4 of 12
The tribunal held that the sanction for the Section 148 notice, required under Section 151(ii) of the Act, was not obtained from the appropriate authority (Ld. Pr. CIT, Thane). Therefore, the notice and the subsequent assessment order were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as per the amended Section 149(1)(a) because the alleged escaped income was less than fifty lakh rupees, and the conditions for the extended period were not met.
The Tribunal held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the assessee. Even if the assessee had overcharged for services, this alone does not change the taxability of receipts from business income to unexplained cash credits. The onus on the assessee was to show that the receipts were business receipts provided in lieu of services, which the assessee reasonably demonstrated through submissions and documents like invoices, confirmations, TDS records, and agreements. The Tribunal noted that the expenses claimed were within a reasonable range of gross receipts and reflected in audited books, with no specific discrepancies highlighted by the Revenue. Citing CIT vs. Vesesh Infotechnics Ltd., the Tribunal stated that high profitability is possible and cannot be doubted by the Revenue without specific evidence. The Tribunal found no new facts or materials presented by the Revenue to controvert the NFAC's findings. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. The NFAC's order deleting the additions made by the AO was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee had provided a justifiable explanation and that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing and allowing the assessee to submit documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by liberally construing the expression 'sufficient cause', prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while Section 43CA was applicable, the AO had not referred the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) as is the practice. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the AO for a fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated 22.07.2022 for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal. The Tribunal also held that for AY 2016-17, the notice under Section 148 was invalid due to lack of proper sanction under Section 151(ii) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documents like invoices, TDS records, and agreements to establish that the income was business income, not unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld as the revenue failed to bring on record any evidence to controvert the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal held that the trust had a valid registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, which was extended until 25.11.2022, and was re-registered on 24.03.2022. Therefore, taxing the entire receipts as income was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had categorically found that the loans taken from banks were entirely used to lend to Link Shipping and that the interest earned on these loans was offered as income under Section 56. Therefore, the interest paid on borrowed funds was directly related to the interest earned and qualified for deduction under Section 57. Consequently, there was no justification for upholding the proportionate disallowance of Rs. 8,44,270/- made by the AO. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete this addition. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,66,740/- due to a difference in claimed deduction and the bank certificate, the assessee admitted the excess claim and did not press the issue. Thus, this addition was upheld. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot improve upon the AO's case by changing the basis of addition without issuing a show-cause notice. The Tribunal also found that excess cash deposits were explained by considering tuition fees and bank withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that while the survey on 07.12.2020 revealed a lack of primary documents, the assessee subsequently furnished details such as tax invoices, agreements, service tax/GST payments, and TDS deductions. The Tribunal found that these documents, including agreements for business advocacy, information, liaison, consultancy, leasing, investor identification, securing NOCs, SWOT analysis, documentation, and design of foundations, established that the income was earned in lieu of providing services. The Tribunal relied on the principle of preponderance of probability and the balance of convenience, finding it tilted in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the expenses were within a reasonable range and reflected in audited books, and that the high profitability was not a ground to doubt the assessee's claim, citing CIT vs. Vesesh Infotechnics Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue had not brought on record any evidence to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) or to prove that the assessee was not doing consultancy services. Therefore, the grounds raised by the department were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on software was for application software that enabled efficient business operations and did not result in the acquisition of a capital asset. Following judicial precedents, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals. Regarding the issue of tuition fees being taxed under Section 69A by the Ld. CIT(A) after changing the basis from the AO's assessment under Section 68 without a show-cause notice, the Tribunal held that this action was not permissible. Citing decisions of coordinate benches, the Tribunal emphasized that the revenue cannot improve upon the case made out by the AO, and any change in the basis of addition by the appellate authority without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard on the new basis is unsustainable. Therefore, the additions made on this ground were deleted. In another matter concerning excess cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the AO had not considered the starting point of computation from the previous financial year and had also not accounted for tuition fees earned in that year and withdrawals from another bank account. Considering these factors, the Tribunal held that the source of the excess deposit stood explained and directed the deletion of the additions. Consequently, all grounds were allowed, and the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessees' appeals. On the issue of taxing tuition fees under Section 69A by changing the basis from Section 68 without a show cause notice, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot improve upon the AO's case and that changing the basis without providing an opportunity to the assessee is not permissible. Relying on coordinate bench decisions, this ground was allowed. Regarding the disallowance of expenses against commission income, the Tribunal found that the expenses were incurred for earning the commission and directed the deletion of the disallowance. For excess cash deposits, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not considered the opening balance of cash deposits and other sources of income, such as tuition fees earned in FY 2019-20 and withdrawals from another bank account. Considering these factors, the Tribunal held that the excess deposit was explained and directed the deletion of the additions. Consequently, all grounds were allowed, and the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and the Delhi High Court's ruling in the case of Intelsat Corporation. It held that payments for transponder services to Intelsat Global Sales and Marketing Limited were not royalty and therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section 195.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot improve upon the AO's case by changing the basis of addition without issuing a show-cause notice. The Tribunal also found that excess cash deposits were explained by considering tuition fees and bank withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot improve upon the AO's case by changing the basis of addition without issuing a show-cause notice. The Tribunal also found that excess cash deposits were explained by considering tuition fees and bank withdrawals.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had restricted additions on account of bogus purchases to 20% GP. However, relying on the Supreme Court decision in NK Protein Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Tribunal held that if purchases are found bogus, additions must be made on the entire purchase value.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including purchase invoices, banking channel payments, and demat account credits, to demonstrate the genuineness of the share transactions. Therefore, the addition made by the AO treating the LTCG as unexplained cash credit was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held in favour of the assessees on all grounds. Regarding the change in the basis of addition from Section 68 to Section 69A by the CIT(A) without a show cause notice, the Tribunal relied on the decisions of its Coordinate Benches in ACIT Vs. Prakash L. Shah and JCIT Vs. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. It was held that the department cannot improve upon the case made out by the AO, and changing the basis of addition without providing an opportunity to the assessee to rebut the new grounds is not permissible. Consequently, the additions made under Section 69A concerning tuition fees were directed to be deleted. Concerning the disallowance of expenses against commission income, the Tribunal found that the assessee had earned commission income and likely incurred expenses for earning it, satisfying the conditions of Section 57(iii). Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted. Regarding excess cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the AO had not considered the tuition fees earned in FY 2019-20 and net withdrawals from another bank account. Once these were considered, the source of the excess deposit of Rs.2,66,000/- stood explained, and the addition was directed to be deleted. All grounds were allowed.
The tribunal held that each assessment year is distinct, and a technical rejection from a prior year (due to delayed filing) should not impact a valid option exercised for the current year. Since the assessee timely filed the return for AY 2023-24 and clearly opted for Section 115BAC, the tribunal quashed the Learned CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh orders considering the Section 115BAC option.
The Tribunal held that the additions were made solely based on the statement of a third party (the builder) without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The assessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s fact-based findings were reasonable and did not find reason to interfere. The CIT(A) correctly considered the project completion method and possession dates for recognizing revenue.
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the addition to the assessee's income was made on an estimation basis, specifically by taxing the profit margin embedded in the alleged bogus purchases, which was determined at 3% by the AO. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd.*, which clarified that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also referred to a coordinate bench decision in *Atul Properties vs. ACIT*, where it was held that penalty is not leviable when additions are made on an estimation basis. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to demonstrate that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty imposed on additions made on an estimation basis was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty amount.
The Tribunal held that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the relied upon judgment in NK Proteins Ltd. The alleged suppliers were genuine businesses with no connection to the assessee, and there was no evidence of fraudulent transactions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee consistently deposited cash from business receipts, and the deposits made during the demonetization period were not disproportionately high compared to preceding months. Considering the nature of the business, which was permitted to collect old demonetized notes, the Tribunal concluded that the cash deposits were from disclosed business receipts. Therefore, the additions made under Section 69A were unwarranted and were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made part payment towards the purchase consideration on 06.02.2015, and an allotment letter with terms of balance payment and delivery was issued. The Tribunal found that the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b) is applicable in such cases, allowing the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement to be considered. The Tribunal also noted that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) were inserted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.04.2017, and were not applicable to transactions agreed upon prior to that date. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Kajari Banerjee and Smt. Hazari Banerjee, holding that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable and should be deleted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The ratio decidendi is that for transactions involving immovable property where the agreement date and registration date differ, and part payment is made through account payee instruments, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement should be considered, and the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) are applicable prospectively.
The tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the cash deposits. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, it was concluded that unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts are deemed to be income.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) due to the negligence of their consultant. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the ground challenging the reopening was dismissed as it was not raised before the CIT(A). Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce evidence of genuineness despite opportunities, and the addition of Rs. 3,36,815/- was confirmed. However, the addition on account of cessation of liability u/s 41(1) was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 10B was only 2 days and an application for condonation of delay was pending. The CIT(A) should have awaited the decision on this application before dismissing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that notional rent cannot be added as income for a charitable trust, as such income cannot be actually applied or accumulated for trust purposes. It also noted that the cessation of liability issue was not adequately addressed by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the AO had treated the sale consideration of shares as unexplained investment without proper verification and that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for the transactions. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was involved in business activity, as evidenced by substantial purchases of artwork and the movement of stock. The CIT(A) failed to consider the entire profit and loss account and balance sheet.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not mention providing a personal hearing or dealing with the additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO made an ad-hoc addition without proper justification or adverse evidence. The addition was based on a formula for abnormal cash sales, which was not supported by facts. The lower authorities' reasoning for sustained additions was also found to be lacking.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 of the Act could not have been issued after three years from the end of the assessment year, as the income escaping assessment did not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. Furthermore, the sanction for reopening was taken from an improper authority, violating Section 151(ii) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that a penalty on an estimated addition, especially when a major part of the addition has been deleted, is unsustainable. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the Commissioner was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, noting that it was unclear if proper notices were issued for the hearing.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the submissions and documents provided by the assessee. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after evaluating all documents and providing a proper hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. Commissioner, who had allowed the exemption. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to produce material evidence to prove the transactions were bogus and noted that the assessee had followed due process for share purchase and sale.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to 'sufficient cause' and bonafide reasons. The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the AO, remanding the issues for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to a clear non-application of mind by the AO. The AO failed to establish a nexus between the information received and the belief that income had escaped assessment, as the assessee had not claimed exempt gains or losses in the manner suggested by the information.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s fact-based findings were reasonable and did not find reason to interfere. The CIT(A) correctly considered the project completion method and possession dates for recognizing revenue.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on software was for application software that enabled efficient business operations and did not result in the acquisition of a capital asset. Following judicial precedents, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated 22.07.2022 for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal. The Tribunal also held that for AY 2016-17, the notice under Section 148 was invalid due to lack of proper sanction under Section 151(ii) of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 779 days in filing the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others, emphasizing that refusing to condone delay can defeat the cause of justice. However, the Tribunal also noted the assessee's non-compliant and indifferent attitude in responding to notices from the CIT(E), which was deemed unacceptable and a failure to diligently pursue the case. Consequently, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee for their non-compliant attitude. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the ground of non-prosecution without deciding the application on merits, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration, directing that a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing be given to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not affect the merits of the case, which the CIT(E) is empowered to decide independently. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the Master Rental and Financing Agreement between HPFS and the assessee clearly indicated that HPFS was the owner of the equipment, and the assessee's rights were only as a lessee. The AO had observed that both HPFS and the assessee were claiming depreciation on the same leased assets, leading to a double claim. The Tribunal agreed with the AO's reasoning that depreciation could only be claimed on assets owned by the assessee. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was set aside. Regarding the assessee's cross-objection for AY 2016-17, which sought deduction of the principal component of lease rentals, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated this claim. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for examination, allowing adequate opportunity for hearing to the assessee. The cross-objection was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to this direction. For AY 2017-18, the Revenue's appeal was also allowed for identical reasons. The assessee's first cross-objection regarding violation of natural justice was dismissed as no infirmity was brought on record. The second cross-objection, seeking deduction of lease rentals including the principal component, was also remitted to the CIT(A) for examination, similar to the AY 2016-17, and allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the requisite sanction from the Pr. CCIT as mandated by Section 151(ii) of the Act, as it was obtained from the Pr. CIT instead.