Loading ITAT cases…
594 orders · Page 4 of 12
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- under Section 69C for AY 2018-19, based on a loose sheet found from Shri Avish Atal's residence, is not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the loose sheet did not bear the assessee's name, and the assessee denied any business connection with Shri Avish Atal. The primary basis for the addition was the statements of Shri Ravindra Wadepalle and Shri Prashant Nilawar, which were subsequently retracted. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had also deleted a larger addition of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- from the same loose sheet in AY 2019-20, indicating contradictory reasoning. Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to its own decision in the case of Prashant Prakash Nilawar (a partner of the assessee) and the assessee's own case for AY 2021-22, where additions based on electronic records found from third parties without corroborative evidence linking them to the assessee were deleted. The Tribunal emphasized that presumptions under Section 132(4A) read with Section 292C are rebuttable and evidence found in the possession of a third party cannot be automatically saddled onto the assessee without linking evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the electronic record (image/sheet) relied upon by the AO was not properly certified as per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits in the Federal Bank account were adequately accounted for and reported by the assessee in their individual capacity under their proprietary concern, M/s. Bombay Tyres. The addition made under Section 69A was deleted as the transactions were already assessed to tax.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 43CA allows for a variation within the 10% limit between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value. Since the difference was within this limit and supported by DVO's report, the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was without merit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd., which held that if an assessee fails to substantiate the genuineness of purchases from non-existent parties, and corresponding sales are accepted, it implies accommodation bills were obtained and goods procured from undisclosed sources. The value of such unrecorded procurement is taxable. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A)'s restricted addition of 1.5% could not be sustained without a proper factual re-examination in light of the declared law. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication, affording the assessee an opportunity to substantiate her claim. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the remand proceedings were exploratory and did not preclude the Revenue from filing an appeal. The cross-objections of the assessee were dismissed as academic.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB on grounds of delay was not sustainable. While acknowledging the delay, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed its provisional registration application in time and the delay in filing for final approval was marginal, attributed to the erstwhile consultant. Citing a coordinate bench's decision in Narke Green Foundation Charitable Institution, the Tribunal emphasized a pragmatic approach to procedural law, balancing strict adherence with the need for justice. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be genuine and bonafide, and restored the application to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to file its amended objects at the earliest. Regarding the MOA clauses allowing activities outside India, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had initiated steps to amend the MOA and had submitted an application to the Registrar of Companies for alteration. Following the precedent in Sila for Change Foundation v/s CIT(E), the Tribunal restored the application for registration under Section 12AB to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after the assessee files its amended objects. Consequently, the order rejecting the application for Section 80G approval was also set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for deciding it afresh. Both grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the remand proceedings were exploratory and did not preclude the Revenue from filing an appeal. The cross-objections of the assessee were dismissed as academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender companies and the transactions. Therefore, the addition for unexplained loans and the disallowance of interest expenditure were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the Coordinate Bench had directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the Section 12AB application. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the Section 80G approval was restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB on grounds of delay was not sustainable. While acknowledging the delay, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed its provisional registration application in time and the delay in filing for final approval was marginal, attributed to the erstwhile consultant. Citing a coordinate bench's decision in Narke Green Foundation Charitable Institution, the Tribunal emphasized a pragmatic approach to procedural law, balancing strict adherence with the need for justice. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be genuine and bonafide, and restored the application to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to file its amended objects at the earliest. Regarding the MOA clauses allowing activities outside India, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had initiated steps to amend the MOA and had submitted an application to the Registrar of Companies for alteration. Following the precedent in Sila for Change Foundation v/s CIT(E), the Tribunal restored the application for registration under Section 12AB to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after the assessee files its amended objects. Consequently, the order rejecting the application for Section 80G approval was also set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for deciding it afresh. Both grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of missed notices and the Revenue's argument of sufficient opportunity. It decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal made no findings on the merits of the case, treating one ground related to natural justice as allowed for statistical purposes due to the remand.
The Tribunal held that the corpus fund donations received by the assessee, which were used for acquiring immovable properties for charitable purposes, should not be included in the total income. The assessee's registrations under Section 12A and 80G were valid, and the revenue failed to disprove the utilization of funds for the trust's objects.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) violated principles of natural justice by cancelling the registration without providing the Assessee an effective opportunity of being heard. The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting due hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not have proper knowledge of the appellate proceedings due to a non-functional email ID. Therefore, another opportunity was granted to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries and relied solely on the Investigation Wing Report, which was later contradicted by SEBI's final report. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision which found similar transactions to be genuine.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others, which emphasizes that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out. The Tribunal found that the delay was not intentional but due to unavoidable and sufficient cause, such as bonafide mistakes and circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal also observed that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed without proper adjudication on merits, as the assessee did not submit relevant documents and evidence. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of non-prosecution, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held that it is the duty of the appellate authority to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if the appellant fails to appear. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the entire matter back to the AO for passing the assessment order de novo, after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to advance arguments and provide supporting evidence. The decision to restore the matter was not to be construed as any reflection on the merits of the dispute.
The ITAT held that the assessment orders were void ab initio due to violations of the Faceless Assessment Scheme and the mandatory requirement of a pre-generated Document Identification Number (DIN). The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by an unauthorized officer and the assessment orders lacked a valid DIN.
The Tribunal held that since the trust had already paid tax on its income, the distribution to the beneficiary was not taxable in the hands of the assessee, especially considering past precedents and a CBDT circular. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow credit for taxes already paid and to consider the consequential grounds related to interest under sections 234A and 234B.
The Tribunal held that the failure of the revenue to provide the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed as void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the applications arose from a bonafide mistaken belief and deserved to be condoned. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to decide the applications for renewal of registration u/s. 12A and approval u/s. 80G on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders are void ab initio due to the absence of a valid pre-generated Document Identification Number (DIN), as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019. The Tribunal followed the ratio of various High Court judgments, including Ashok Commercial Enterprises, CIT v. Laserwords US Inc., and Sutherland Global Services Inc., which held that the procedural mandate regarding DIN is mandatory and not directory, and that post-dated DIN intimations cannot cure the defect. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed invalid and non est in the eyes of law. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 were vitiated in law for want of jurisdiction, as they were initiated by an officer not authorized under the Faceless Scheme (section 151A). The notice under section 148 was considered coram non judice. The Tribunal also noted that the additions made towards alleged unaccounted investment in land at Dhokawade were based on retracted statements and unreliable evidence. In consequence, all additions made towards alleged unaccounted investment in land at Dhokawade were deleted in full. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio. All consequential adjustments, including disallowances, carry-forward of losses, and interest levies, were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in full.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were void ab initio due to non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019, which mandates the issuance of orders with a valid pre-generated DIN. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT and the Madras High Court's decisions in CIT v. Laserwords US Inc. and CIT (International Taxation) v. Sutherland Global Services Inc., stating that the absence of a pre-generated DIN or failure to obtain prior approval for manual issuance is fatal to the validity of the order. The Tribunal also held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were vitiated for want of jurisdiction, as they were initiated in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme under Section 151A, making the notice coram non judice. The Tribunal cited the Bombay High Court's ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT, which was consistently followed in subsequent cases. Consequently, all additions made towards alleged unaccounted investment in land at Dhokawade were deleted, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed. Ancillary determinations like depreciation, interest levies, and carry-forward adjustments were rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the explanation regarding cash balances of the assessee's father and wife, as well as the amount claimed as gifts, was supported by evidence and contemporaneous records. The CIT(A)'s conclusion that the father and wife were not income-tax filers was factually incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions as the assessee provided satisfactory explanations supported by documentary evidence. The Revenue failed to rebut the assessee's explanations.
The Tribunal held that the contingent deferred consideration, which was not received by the assessee due to non-fulfillment of conditions, cannot be brought to tax. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee functions as an investment holding company and is wholly owned by Temasek, a Singapore government-owned entity.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were invalid and void ab initio due to non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019, as they were manually issued without a valid pre-generated DIN. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT, and the Madras High Court in CIT v. Laserwords US Inc. and CIT (International Taxation) v. Sutherland Global Services Inc., which established that the DIN protocol is a jurisdictional prerequisite and not a curable irregularity. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 were also quashed as void ab initio for violating the Faceless Assessment Scheme under section 151A and for the absence of a valid DIN. The Tribunal noted that the notice under section 148 was issued by an unauthorized officer, rendering it coram non judice. As a result, the additions made towards alleged unaccounted investment in land at Dhokawade were deleted in full, and all consequential adjustments, such as disallowances and interest levies, were rendered academic. The appeals were allowed in full.
The Tribunal held that the seized Excel sheets lacked probative value and the retracted statements supporting them were unreliable. The reassessment proceedings were also found to suffer from jurisdictional and procedural defects.
The Tribunal noted that the submissions of the assessee were not properly verified by the lower authorities. Therefore, to ensure justice and proper verification of evidence, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a detailed order on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the initial delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal before it, finding the reasons to be bonafide. However, for the substantial delay before the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the condonation application, providing the assessee an opportunity to submit supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the applications arose from a bonafide mistaken belief and deserved to be condoned. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to decide the applications for renewal of registration u/s. 12A and approval u/s. 80G on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under section 69A/69B on account of alleged cash investment in Agarsure land stand deleted for want of evidence. The Tribunal found that the Excel sheets were mere estimates and the statements relied upon by the AO were retracted. The reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 were quashed for lack of jurisdiction in terms of the Faceless Assessment Scheme and for issuing a defective notice. The Tribunal further held that the assessment orders were invalidated for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 due to the absence of a valid pre-generated DIN. The Tribunal cited various High Court and Supreme Court decisions to support its findings on the invalidity of orders issued without DIN and the jurisdictional issues with the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The ratio decidendi is that procedural safeguards like DIN and adherence to assessment schemes are mandatory, and non-compliance renders the assessment void ab initio. The operative direction is the deletion of additions and quashing of reassessment proceedings and assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that the facts of this case are identical to a batch of appeals decided by a coordinate bench. Following that decision, the appeal was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 59,05,000 was deleted on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were void ab initio for non-compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019, as they were manually issued and followed by post-dated DIN intimations. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT and other High Court judgments, which held that the procedural mandate under the Circular is mandatory and not directory, and that post-dated compliance cannot cure the inherent defect of invalidity. The Tribunal further held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 were vitiated for being initiated in violation of the Faceless Scheme under section 151A and compounded by the failure to generate and quote a valid DIN. The notice under section 148 was considered coram non judice as it was issued by an unauthorized officer, and the subsequent order without a valid DIN was a nullity. Consequently, all additions made towards alleged unaccounted investment in land at Dhokawade were deleted in full, and the reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio. All consequential adjustments, such as disallowances, carry-forward of losses, and interest levies, were rendered academic.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had made out a reasonable cause for not attending to the notices. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the assessee's claims after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the seized Excel sheets lacked probative value and the retracted statements supporting them were unreliable. The reassessment proceedings were also found to suffer from jurisdictional and procedural defects.
The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's invocation of Section 263, agreeing that the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the Section 80P deduction. The assessment order was set aside for fresh assessment with proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a trustee acting in a fiduciary capacity for non-resident beneficiaries. Evidence, including clarifications from Swiss authorities and affidavits, indicated the funds and beneficiaries were non-residents, thus not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement for proceedings under Section 153C. The absence of such a note vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction and renders the assessment proceedings null and void.
The Tribunal held that the recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement for proceedings under Section 153C. The absence of such a note vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction and renders the consequent proceedings null and void.
The Tribunal held that income derived from transportation of passengers under code-sharing arrangements falls within the scope of 'operation of aircrafts' as defined in Article 8(2) of the India-US DTAA. Consequently, such income is exempt from taxation in India.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by partly allowing them. Regarding the additional ground concerning the notice under Section 143(2), it was not admitted as no request was made under Rule 11 of ITAT Rules and no submissions were made. For the issue of reopening under Section 148, the CIT(A) had found sufficient materials and relied on precedents, which the Tribunal did not disturb. Concerning the derivative losses, the Tribunal noted that for AY 2014-15, the assessee did not furnish details of scrips traded and the loss was incurred on the same day trade reversal, upholding the addition. For AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the decision in AY 2014-15 was applied mutatis mutandis. For the additions under Section 68 concerning alleged accommodation loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed necessary documents to prove identity, creditworthiness, and bank statements before the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that while the initial burden is on the assessee to explain the nature and source, the AO must scrutinize and probe further if doubts arise. Crucially, the Tribunal restored the issue of loans from Sri Sharad Darak's controlled companies to the AO with a direction to facilitate cross-examination of Sri Sharad Darak and any other person whose statements led to adverse inferences. The Tribunal rejected the argument that genuine transactions with the same lender and third parties by co-ordinate benches absolved the assessee of its statutory obligation under Section 68. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 212 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's lack of education and unfamiliarity with e-communication as sufficient cause, and referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds of appeal, and the assessment order was also passed ex parte. Consequently, none of the issues raised by the assessee had been adjudicated on merits. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the entire matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who was also directed to cooperate fully. The Tribunal clarified that this decision was not an expression on the merits of the dispute, which would be adjudicated by the AO independently. The grounds of appeal and the appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by partly allowing them. Regarding the additional ground concerning the notice under Section 143(2), it was not admitted as no request was made under Rule 11 of ITAT Rules and no submissions were made. For the issue of reopening under Section 148, the CIT(A) had found sufficient materials and relied on precedents, which the Tribunal did not disturb. Concerning the derivative losses, the Tribunal noted that for AY 2014-15, the assessee did not furnish details of scrips traded and the loss was incurred on the same day trade reversal, upholding the addition. For AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the decision in AY 2014-15 was applied mutatis mutandis. For the additions under Section 68 concerning alleged accommodation loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed necessary documents to prove identity, creditworthiness, and bank statements before the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that while the initial burden is on the assessee to explain the nature and source, the AO must scrutinize and probe further if doubts arise. Crucially, the Tribunal restored the issue of loans from Sri Sharad Darak's controlled companies to the AO with a direction to facilitate cross-examination of Sri Sharad Darak and any other person whose statements led to adverse inferences. The Tribunal rejected the argument that genuine transactions with the same lender and third parties by co-ordinate benches absolved the assessee of its statutory obligation under Section 68. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement for proceedings under Section 153C. The absence of such a satisfaction note vitiates the assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee provided satisfactory explanations supported by evidence for the cash and jewellery. The Revenue failed to rebut the assessee's explanations.
The Tribunal held that assessment orders passed in the name of a non-existent entity are void ab initio and without jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.
The Tribunal held that income derived from transportation of passengers under code-sharing arrangements falls within the scope of 'operation of aircrafts' as defined in Article 8(2) of the India-US DTAA. Consequently, such income is exempt from taxation in India.
The Tribunal decided the appeals by partly allowing them. Regarding the additional ground concerning the notice under Section 143(2), it was not admitted as no request was made under Rule 11 of ITAT Rules and no submissions were made. For the issue of reopening under Section 148, the CIT(A) had found sufficient materials and relied on precedents, which the Tribunal did not disturb. Concerning the derivative losses, the Tribunal noted that for AY 2014-15, the assessee did not furnish details of scrips traded and the loss was incurred on the same day trade reversal, upholding the addition. For AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the decision in AY 2014-15 was applied mutatis mutandis. For the additions under Section 68 concerning alleged accommodation loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed necessary documents to prove identity, creditworthiness, and bank statements before the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that while the initial burden is on the assessee to explain the nature and source, the AO must scrutinize and probe further if doubts arise. Crucially, the Tribunal restored the issue of loans from Sri Sharad Darak's controlled companies to the AO with a direction to facilitate cross-examination of Sri Sharad Darak and any other person whose statements led to adverse inferences. The Tribunal rejected the argument that genuine transactions with the same lender and third parties by co-ordinate benches absolved the assessee of its statutory obligation under Section 68. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO. The additional area acquired under the development agreement for a consideration was considered part of the investment eligible for deduction under Section 54. The AO's arbitrary fixation of market rate was also found to be infirm.
The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which is a fundamental requirement (sine qua non). Concluding that this resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal set aside the Ld.CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to present its case within sixty days.