Loading ITAT cases…
591 orders · Page 10 of 12
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements without corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination are unsustainable. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal decided to first address the grounds challenging the addition made under section 69A. The assessee had provided documentary evidence to establish the identity of AFL, including PAN card, confirmation of accounts, MOA, AOA, and RBI registration. For creditworthiness, the assessee submitted AFL's ITR for AY 2018-19 showing income of Rs. 67,25,587, audited financial statements showing revenue of Rs. 22.16 crores in FY 2017-18, long-term borrowings of Rs. 913 crores, equity of Rs. 5 crores, and fixed deposits of Rs. 8 crores as of March 31, 2018. These figures were considered multiple times the loan amount, proving creditworthiness. For genuineness, it was noted that AFL is an NBFC regulated by the RBI, the payment was through banking channels, and the loan was repaid within 113 days. AFL's business of lending was evident from its balance sheet. The Tribunal also noted that similar loan transactions from AFL had been treated as genuine by coordinate benches of the ITAT. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs made by the AO under section 69A was ordered to be deleted, as the assessee had discharged its onus. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of reassessment legality was not adjudicated as the primary ground for addition was deleted. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind and without a live nexus between the material relied upon and the alleged escapement of income. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as invalid and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the rejection of its application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. The Hon'ble High Court, by an order dated 15.09.2025, quashed the rejection order and condoned the delay of 84 days in filing Form 10B. The learned AR submitted that with the condonation of delay by the High Court, the assessee's grievance has been redressed, and therefore, the appeal may be treated as withdrawn. The learned DR did not object to this proposition. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The specific findings on the substantive issues of denial of exemption under Section 11 and the validity of adjustments under Section 143(1) were not adjudicated upon by the Tribunal as the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
The tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee PF/ESIC contributions is not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal also found merit in the assessee's contention regarding disallowance of current year's loss based on Section 170(1) and directed the AO to re-verify.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b), stating that the transaction was governed by pre-amended provisions as the agreement and substantial payment were made prior to the relevant financial year. The disallowance under Section 14A was also contested.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, accepting the assessee's explanation of an unintentional administrative lapse. It was held that the original appeals were decided ex-parte without proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that where an assessee consistently follows a method of apportioning expenditure to capital work and claiming the balance as revenue, and this method was accepted in earlier years, there is no reason for departure without contrary findings. The Tribunal also noted the revenue neutrality of the treatment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, accepting the assessee's explanation of an unintentional administrative lapse. It was held that the original appeals were decided ex-parte without proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal for AY 1999-2000 was not maintainable due to low tax effect. For the other two assessment years, the grounds raised by the revenue were covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal, allowing similar deductions for interest expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action in reopening the assessment was bad in law due to the absence of a valid approval from the competent authority. Furthermore, even on merits, considering the assessee's plea that shares were purchased in 2009, the lower authorities should have further investigated rather than making additions based solely on investigation wing information.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished documentary evidence that was not considered by the lower authorities. It held that the addition made solely on information from DGIT(Inv.) without considering evidence was incorrect. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for re-examination of the documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the appeal for AY 1999-2000 was not maintainable due to low tax effect. For the other two assessment years, the grounds raised by the revenue were covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal, allowing similar deductions for interest expenditure.
The Tribunal held that making a claim which is not sustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the appeal for AY 1999-2000 was not maintainable due to low tax effect. For the other two assessment years, the grounds raised by the revenue were covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal, allowing similar deductions for interest expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted imparting "education" as per Section 2(15) and that the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the lower authorities was incorrect. Certain issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that CSR spending, even if mandatory, does not negate the voluntary nature of the contribution made to eligible foundations under Section 80G. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the allotment letter should be considered for the purpose of the proviso to Section 56(2)(x). Therefore, the stamp duty value on the date of allotment, not registration, should be used. The addition made by the AO based on the registration date's stamp duty value was deemed not tenable.
The Tribunal found the Ld. Commissioner's order to be cryptic and lacking in reasoning. It was decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted imparting "education" as per Section 2(15) and that the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the lower authorities was incorrect. Certain issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted imparting "education" as per Section 2(15) and thus were charitable. Consequently, the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the lower authorities was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted imparting "education" as per Section 2(15) and that the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the lower authorities was incorrect. Certain issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The ITAT 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, stating that refusing condonation could lead to a meritorious matter being thrown out and cause injustice. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices under Section 250 of the Act, and none of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal were adjudicated. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not evaluate the points for consideration objectively. However, it also acknowledged the assessee's duty to diligently pursue appeals and comply with notices. In the interest of natural justice and fair play, the ITAT set aside the appellate order and restored the entire matter to the AO for passing a fresh assessment order after granting one final opportunity to the assessee to advance arguments and submissions. The assessee was directed to attend the assessment proceedings before the AO without fail. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the identity of the lender might be established, its creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction were not substantiated. Therefore, the issue of the genuineness of the transaction was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted imparting "education" as per Section 2(15) and that the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the lower authorities was incorrect. Certain issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond 3 years and required approval from the PCCIT, not the PCIT. Since the approval was obtained from PCIT, the notice was invalid, and consequently, the assessment based on it was liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted imparting "education" as per Section 2(15) and that the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the lower authorities was incorrect. Certain issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was invalid because it was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and the approval for its issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment based on this invalid notice was quashed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the case was distinguishable from *M/s. Kanak Impex* and *M/s. Drisha Impex*, where 100% disallowance was confirmed under different factual circumstances. In the present case, the assessee had filed all requisite documents, including GST returns, details of goods purchased, payment details, delivery challans, and stock vouchers. The AO's sole doubt pertained to the delivery challans indicating transport by handcart for voluminous consignments from Ahmedabad to Mumbai. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's alternate prayer. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the amount computed at the declared GP rate of 11.54% on the impugned purchases of Rs. 32,75,050/-. The other legal grounds were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid because it did not clearly specify under which limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) the penalty was being imposed. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted imparting "education" as per Section 2(15) and that the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the lower authorities was incorrect. Certain issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities constituted imparting "education" as per Section 2(15) and that the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the lower authorities was incorrect. Certain issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate on the assessee's crucial ground regarding the absence of a mandatory show cause notice before adjustment under Section 143(1) proviso. Acknowledging that the return was filed belatedly due to the Covid period, the Tribunal deemed it a reasonable cause and restored the entire issue to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order, passed after due verification by the AO with prior approval of the Additional Commissioner, was erroneous. The PCIT's revisionary powers were not justified as no specific defects or escapement of income were clearly pointed out.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order, passed after due verification by the AO with prior approval from the Additional Commissioner, was erroneous. The PCIT's revisionary powers were not justified as no specific defects or escapement of income were clearly pointed out.
The Tribunal held that since the addition was ultimately sustained on an estimated basis and not due to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, no penalty could be levied. The penalty was deleted as it was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty, being consequential to the quantum addition, cannot survive if the quantum addition is deleted. Since a coordinate bench had deleted the addition on technical grounds (reopening beyond time limit), the penalty deletion by CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by an officer lacking jurisdiction, rendering the notice and subsequent assessment order invalid. The High Court's decision in Nimir Kishore Mehta was cited, emphasizing that jurisdiction for non-residents lies with the International Taxation Officer.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not aware of the notices from the CIT(A) due to a family dispute and lack of communication with his brother, who handled legal matters. Considering this, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, allowing the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to substantiate the cash movement with bank records, the deposits likely related to business activity. Rigid application of Section 69A without correlating deposits to business receipts resulted in excessive taxation.
The tribunal, following its consistent decisions in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years, ruled that the assessee is entitled to India-UK DTAA benefits. It held that the income does not constitute Fees for Technical Services under Article 13 of the DTAA, and no Permanent Establishment exists in India as the period of stay of employees (4 days) was below the 90-day threshold of Article 5(2)(k). Furthermore, Article 15 (independent personal services) is not applicable as the assessee is not an individual, leading to the conclusion that the income is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that making a claim which is not sustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for withdrawal due to the appeal being a duplicate, and noted that the Ld. DR did not object to this claim. Consequently, the instant appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that making a claim which is not sustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposit could not be added as unexplained income, as the account was used for money transfer services. However, the assessee failed to demonstrate the commission earned and its reconciliation with declared income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing details and bank statements. The AO failed to rebut the assessee's explanation or discharge the shifting onus. The Tribunal found no merit in the orders of the authorities below.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to a deposit, and held that the issue of the credit entry needed proper adjudication. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for consideration of the reply and documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing details of the loan and its repayment, which was substantiated by bank statements. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further investigation to disprove the assessee's contention.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It ruled that prior year losses, once set off against other income, cannot be notionally carried forward for Section 80-IA deduction calculations. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A) on the allowability of interest on delayed IGST, gratuity expenditure, and Section 80G deduction for CSR expenses.