Loading ITAT cases…
699 orders · Page 9 of 14
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued within the prescribed time limits, and the approval obtained from the specified authority under Section 151 was valid. However, as the assessment was protective and the substantive assessment was in the wife's hands, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have deferred the decision pending the outcome of the condonation application for the delay. The delay was not inordinate, and the benefit of exemption should not be denied solely on procedural non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s reasoning for rejection was unsustainable as the scope of Section 12AB (and by extension, 80G approval) is to examine the genuineness of objects and activities, not the place of application of income. A co-ordinate bench had previously ruled similarly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 341 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of awareness and reliance on their Chartered Accountant. On merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, directing that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be provided.
The Tribunal held that for the first issue, concerning the addition of ₹86,539, no addition can be sustained merely on a third-party entry unless corroborated by actual receipt in the hands of the assessee. In the absence of proof of actual credit, whether in cash or through bank, the addition cannot be upheld without further verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for thorough verification, including inquiries with bankers and ascertainment of the nature and ownership of M/s Decent Electronics. For the second issue, regarding the addition of ₹6,66,475, the Tribunal noted that while the AO accepted the assessee's modus operandi of collecting cash and withdrawing it for deposit, the assessee had not reconciled whether the total deposits of ₹1,33,29,500 were already considered while working out the commission. Since no such reconciliation was provided, the estimation of unexplained income could not be said to be wholly without basis. In the interest of substantial justice, this matter was also restored to the Assessing Officer with a direction for the assessee to file a reconciliation showing how the deposits were accounted for while computing commission income. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the reconciliation and pass a reasoned order. The ground regarding the CIT(A)'s order being time-barred was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct and failure to furnish supporting evidence despite numerous opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal decided the appeals ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not furnished any details or evidence in support of the grounds of appeal despite numerous opportunities. The case was adjourned multiple times, with the assessee consistently seeking adjournments. On the final hearing date, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal inferred from the assessee's non-compliant behavior that it was not interested in pursuing its appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all four appeals. The reasoning was based on the assessee's failure to cooperate and present its case, rendering it impossible to adjudicate on the merits of the grounds raised. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed a reasoned order providing partial relief, but the assessee's subsequent conduct before the ITAT led to the dismissal. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the appeals were dismissed on procedural grounds due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of cooperation.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct and failure to furnish supporting evidence despite numerous opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal decided the appeals ex-parte.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct and failure to furnish supporting evidence despite numerous opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal decided the appeals ex-parte.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the documents submitted by the assessee and had decided the matter without merit. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The Tribunal found that the assessee had invoked the right under Section 50C(2) of the Act, claiming the stamp duty value was on the higher side, leading the AO to refer the matter to the DVO. The Tribunal noted that the DVO's report is binding on the AO as per Section 50C(3), unless the assessee shows glaring mistakes. The Tribunal examined the DVO report and found that it considered the assessee's objections raised during the valuation exercise and provided exhaustive reasons for rejecting them. The AO had obtained the report in terms of Section 50C and relied on it. The Tribunal found no basis for the assessee to contest the report or any lack of opportunity. The CIT(A) also dealt with the matter judiciously. The Tribunal did not find any reason for remanding the issue as the assessee was accorded a fair opportunity. The case laws relied upon by the assessee were found to be distinguishable. The DVO, being a qualified technical person, submitted a detailed report considering all relevant factors. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the appellate order and dismissed the grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer and directed the AO to decide the issue afresh after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, especially for a charitable trust. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to appreciate the contentions and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The appellate order was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) to examine all relevant details pertaining to the husband's assessment to determine the actual ownership of the properties.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) should have considered the directions of the Bombay High Court regarding the limitation period. Since the appeal was filed within the stipulated time as per the High Court's order, the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) regarding delay was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for verification of compliance and to decide the appeal on merits after hearing both parties, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- if non-compliance is found.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 based on suspicion was not maintainable as the capital introduction was reflected in the books of the partner firm and confirmed. Furthermore, no additions were made in the case of the partner firm for the same transaction.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not granted the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard regarding the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the condonation application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 228 days by accepting the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) order was passed against the deceased, not the legal heir, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order upholding the addition.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the Principal CIT's order under Section 263, which led to the revised assessment, was itself quashed by a previous ITAT decision, the revised assessment order was unsustainable and consequently quashed. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of income accruing on investments made by the assessee was the sole issue for consideration. The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19 had deleted similar additions by following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based on an AAR ruling which had been reversed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Tribunal stated that the DRP had also acknowledged that the issues were covered by the High Court's decision. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's plea and deleted the addition made by the AO. Consequently, ground no.4 was allowed. Grounds no.3, 5, and 6 were rendered moot by this decision. Ground no.2, challenging the validity of reassessment, was kept open. Ground no.1, challenging the limitation of the assessment order, was not pressed and kept open. Ground no.7, regarding TDS credit, was restored to the AO for verification and grant of credit, allowed for statistical purposes. Grounds no.8 and 9, regarding incorrect tax rate and surcharge, were rendered infructuous and dismissed. Ground no.10, regarding interest under section 234B, was consequential and needed no separate adjudication. Ground no.11, regarding penalty proceedings under section 270A, was premature and dismissed. The Tribunal decided not to adjudicate on the validity of reassessment proceedings and the limitation of the assessment order as they were either kept open or not pressed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed filed two appeals for the same order and assessment year, deeming the present appeal duplicate and not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. This decision was made in the interest of justice, considering the assessee's reasons for non-compliance and the Revenue's lack of objection.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had examined the impugned loan transaction in detail and allowed relief to the assessee on sound reasoning. The Tribunal noted that M/s. Satyam Projects Ltd. is a registered NBFC which had undergone a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Calcutta High Court, significantly increasing its net worth to Rs. 101.59 crores. The lender had complied with notices under section 133(6) and its assessment for the year did not draw adverse inferences. The Tribunal also considered that statements relied upon by the AO were retracted, with one individual affirming the retraction before the AO. Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a coordinate bench decision in the case of M/s. Lotus Logistics & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3698/Mum/2019), which dismissed the revenue's appeal on similar facts involving loans from M/s. Satyam Projects Ltd., holding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden and the AO could not place sole reliance on retracted statements. Consequently, the revenue's appeal on the addition of Rs. 6,93,00,000/- was dismissed. The disallowance of interest on this loan was also directed to be allowed as the loan transaction was held to be genuine. The legal issue raised in the cross-objection regarding the notice under section 153A was rendered academic and infructuous as relief was granted on merits.
The Tribunal held that the JAO had conducted due verification and applied his mind, confirming that the adverse information on rough diamonds had no relevance to the assessee's business of polished diamonds, and thus no income had escaped assessment. The PCIT failed to demonstrate how the JAO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, making the invocation of Section 263 unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order and upheld the JAO's decision to drop the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee has indeed earned LTCG on the shares sold, as evidenced by the reconciliation and transmission certificates. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of STCG was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not claimed the MVAT amount as a deduction but merely disclosed it in the tax audit report, it could not be disallowed. The liability to deposit MVAT arises only upon registration of the agreement.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment of MAT credit was consequential to the deletion of additions. Since the revenue did not contest the deletion of additions, and the MAT credit adjustment was a direct consequence, the appeal against the MAT credit adjustment was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantial justice. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of manual filing without considering the merits.
The Tribunal held that sales turnover cannot be determined solely based on a single day's CCTV footage without corroborative evidence. It also found that the stock transfer from Cuttack to Mumbai was supported by statutory declarations and the AO failed to provide corroborative evidence for sale suppression or stock discrepancy.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without examining the merits of the case, as per the judgment in CIT, Central, Nagpur v. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF). The assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of tenancy rights from the maternal uncle to the assessee was without consideration and falls within the exempted category under Section 56(2)(vii) as the uncle is a 'relative'. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not tenable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A, inserting an Explanation, is prospective and not retrospective. Following precedents, the Tribunal ruled that disallowance under Section 14A should only be made on investments that actually yielded exempt income.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made by the CPC were incorrect. The provision for contingent expenses was correctly treated as exempt income, the profit on sale of fixed assets was not a section 10 item and was correctly reduced from WDV, and the discrepancy in disallowances under section 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) was due to an inadvertent error in the ITR, resulting in a net effect of Nil. The First Appellate Authority erred in confirming these adjustments.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, relying on the decisions of the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the appellate order and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue judiciously and had failed to consider the submissions and additional evidence presented by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on a purely technical ground (non-compliance with Rule 46A) without deciding the appeal on merits was contrary to the principles of natural justice. The ITAT observed that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and non-reasoned, failing to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act, which mandates stating points for determination, decision, and reasoning. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with the AO's and that the CIT(A) could have made inquiries or sought a remand report. While acknowledging the inconsistent pleas made by the assessee, the ITAT, in the interest of fairness and justice, set aside the appellate order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on merits, complying with Section 250(6), after providing an opportunity to both parties. The assessee was also directed to comply with notices, failing which the CIT(A) would be free to pass an order as deemed fit.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to appreciate that the assessee had not claimed the impugned amount as a deduction. Instead, the assessee had disclosed the amount in Clause 21(i)(B) of its tax audit report, indicating it was an amount to be paid to the State Government. The Tribunal noted that as a builder, the assessee is obligated to collect 1.00% of the cost of flats as MVAT and pay it to the Government. Considering that the assessee made a disclosure in the audit report and did not claim it as a deduction, it could not be disallowed. Therefore, the sole ground of appeal raised by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263. The Assessing Officer's view that no addition was liable to be made was a permissible view, especially since no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 152 days, noting the assessee's lack of awareness. The ex-parte order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were adhoc and made without incriminating material, and that the assessment year was unabated. It further noted that the expenses were duly disclosed in the profit and loss account and the return of income. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 30,01,923/- by accepting the assessee's explanation of cash sales. However, the Tribunal restored the issue of the Rs. 75,00,000/- entry to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the bonafide mistake and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others. The penalty order was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the transactions by providing documentary evidence. The revenue failed to demonstrate any involvement of the assessee in price manipulation.
The Tribunal held that the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) denied the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings were set aside by the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, there was no basis for levying a penalty arising from the original quantum order. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The tribunal held that the appeal was wrongly dismissed as belated by the CIT(A), considering the Supreme Court's guidelines on extending timelines during the COVID period. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide on merits.
The Tribunal remanded the issue of ALV determination back to the AO, directing strict adherence to the guidelines laid down by the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Tip Top Typography for computing ALV based on Municipal Ratable Value. For the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict it only to investments that yielded exempt income during the year.
The Tribunal noted that Ground No. 1, concerning the violation of Section 143(1)(a) and its proviso, was raised for the first time before the Tribunal. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument that the denial of LTCL carry forward was beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a) adjustments and that no prior intimation was given, citing the *Fortum SAR B.V.* case. However, the Tribunal also observed that the revenue authorities had not had an opportunity to rebut this claim, and crucial documents like the ITR were not on record to ascertain the nature of the LTCL and its eligibility for carry forward. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the case to the file of the CIT(A) to examine the issue of whether an intimation was sent as required by the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a). If no such intimation was issued, the CIT(A) was directed to decide the matter afresh after verifying the assessment records and examining the issue of carry forward of loss based on the necessary facts and the precedent relied upon. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.