Loading ITAT cases…
548 orders · Page 5 of 11
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of 'on-money' receipts and extrapolation was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs. 13,95,000/- (assessee's share in alleged cash receipts found during survey on GHL) after considering the Joint Development Agreement. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had no responsibility for marketing flats or receiving consideration, and GHL was solely responsible for these aspects. Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a decision of the ITAT, Pune Bench, in the case of GHL (the joint development partner of the assessee), where it was held that neither any addition on account of 'on-money' received nor on account of extrapolation could be made. Since the facts were inextricably linked, the Tribunal respectfully followed the decision in GHL's case. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no addition could be justified either on the 'on-money' issue or extrapolation. The impugned appellate order of the CIT(A) was upheld, and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue were dismissed. The addition of Rs. 2,42,12,902/- made by the AO for AY 2017-18 on account of extrapolation was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance based solely on the lender's return showing a loss, without examining the source of borrowing, was not justified. Similarly, the disallowance of expenses was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹1,00,000/- under section 69C for assessment year 2017-18 (and similar additions for other years) was unsustainable. The Tribunal found substantial merit in the assessee's submissions. It was held that neither the information in the pen drive nor the statements recorded were sufficient to conclusively establish the payment of on-money by the assessee. Such material, at best, could raise suspicion but not prove the fact. The Tribunal noted that no incriminating document was found from the assessee, the electronic data was from a third party, the statements did not contain admissions by the assessee, and the assessee was not provided with complete statements or electronic data, nor was cross-examination permitted. Relying on the principles of natural justice and the decision in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE, the Tribunal held that the failure to provide material and grant cross-examination renders the order a nullity. The learned Departmental Representative could not present any distinguishing facts or fresh material. Therefore, the addition was deleted. Since the grounds on merit were allowed, other grounds were rendered academic. The additions in the other two years were also deleted mutatis mutandis.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings and the consequent order were quashed by the Bombay High Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue had become academic and did not require adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance under Section 14A, finding no infirmity. However, the Tribunal restored the issue of interest under Section 244A to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of specific judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were not fully substantiated, the corresponding sales were recorded and accepted. Therefore, disallowing entire purchases was not appropriate. Instead, taxing only the estimated profit element on non-genuine transactions was the correct approach.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance and failure to produce evidence before the first appellate authority, decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for a denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to consider evidence if produced by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the material used against them and was denied the opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the additions were unsustainable.
The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals. Regarding the validity of reopening for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order approving the reopening. The reassessment order was passed on the deceased's PAN, but the Tribunal did not explicitly address the violation of Section 159. The denial of deduction under Section 35AC was upheld because the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the donation to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust, which was found to be involved in providing accommodation entries for bogus donations. The Tribunal noted that the trust's recognition was withdrawn and its registration cancelled. The assessee's submission of donation receipts, bank statements, and Form 58 was insufficient to prove the genuineness of the donation in light of the trust's fraudulent activities. For AY 2017-18, the disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGA was upheld. The assessee failed to produce any certificate contemplated under Section 80GGA to demonstrate the eligibility of M/s St. Jude India Child Care Centre. The institution was neither a scientific research association nor engaged in rural development, and the assessee did not comply with opportunities to provide substantiating evidence. The ratio decidendi is that the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of donations and the eligibility of the donee institution for the claimed deduction, which the assessee failed to do in both instances.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were not fully substantiated, the corresponding sales were recorded and accepted. Therefore, disallowing entire purchases was not appropriate. Instead, taxing only the estimated profit element on non-genuine transactions was the correct approach.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries and relied solely on a third-party statement without cross-examination. The assessee provided substantial documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from the investigation wing concerning M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust, which was found to be involved in providing bogus donation entries. The AO's finding that the trust's recognition was withdrawn and its registration cancelled, coupled with admissions from entry providers and donors, indicated the bogus nature of the transactions. The assessee failed to discharge its onus to substantiate the genuineness of the donation to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust. Consequently, the disallowance of deduction under Section 35AC was upheld. Regarding assessment year 2017-18, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced any certificate contemplated under Section 80GGA to demonstrate the eligibility of the donee institution, M/s St. Jude India Child Care Centre. In the absence of such foundational evidence, the claim for deduction could not be sustained. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of deduction under Section 80GGA. The issues concerning the validity of reopening and the reassessment order passed using the deceased's PAN were implicitly addressed by the Tribunal proceeding to decide the merit of the disallowances, indicating they did not find them to be fatal to the proceedings. All grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance and failure to produce evidence before the first appellate authority, decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for a denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to consider evidence if produced by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries and relied solely on a third-party statement without cross-examination. The assessee provided substantial documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with the material used against them and was denied the opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the additions were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that while purchases were not fully substantiated, the corresponding sales were recorded and accepted. Therefore, disallowing entire purchases was not appropriate. Instead, taxing only the estimated profit element on non-genuine transactions was the correct approach.
The Tribunal observed that the assessees failed to provide supporting documentary evidence to both the AO and CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merits, the Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, granted the assessees another opportunity to present their case and evidence before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits because the assessee was non-compliant with six notices issued and failed to produce documentary evidence. The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea that non-compliance was due to reasons beyond its control and seeking one more opportunity, decided to remand the issue back to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and produce all relevant documentary evidence. The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue denovo based on the evidence produced and on merits in accordance with law. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee raised legal and merit-based grounds, the CIT(A) had not addressed them. The penalty amount in dispute was Rs. 1,74,350, being 100% of the minimum penalty on income sought to be evaded amounting to Rs. 5,17,967. The specific issue of the validity of the notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) and the basis of addition for penalty were not decided on merits by the Tribunal in this order.
The Tribunal held that for trusts/AOPs assessed at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR), the surcharge must be computed with reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act. For income between Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 1 crore, the surcharge rate should be 10%.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by providing complete details of the unsecured loan received and repaid through banking channels, corroborated by bank statements, financial statements, confirmation letters, and the return of income filed by the parties. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not dispute these documents nor held them to be non-genuine, and crucially, there was no discussion of this documentary evidence in their orders. The Tribunal emphasized that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was seized during the search in the case of M/s. Patel RPL Realty Group, except for the assessee's ledger account which was part of its regular books of account. Citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during search, no addition can be made in respect of completed or unabated assessments. Therefore, the Tribunal found no justification for the addition and directed its deletion. The issue regarding the notice u/s. 143(2) was implicitly addressed by allowing the appeal based on the lack of incriminating material and the sufficiency of evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay, attributing it to incorrect legal advice, was not bonafide and was an afterthought. The assessee had made an informed decision not to file an appeal earlier.
The Tribunal held that for trusts/AOPs assessed at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR), the surcharge must be computed with reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act. For income between Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 1 crore, the surcharge rate should be 10%.
The Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's ground and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the penalty appeal afresh after considering the decision on the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that for trusts/AOPs assessed at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR), the surcharge must be computed with reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act. For income between Rs. 50 lakhs and Rs. 1 crore, the surcharge rate should be 10%.
The Tribunal discussed the principles of allowing foreign tax credits based on DTAA provisions and the objective of avoiding double taxation. It also touched upon the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A and the computation of book profits under Section 115JB, referencing various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance and failure to produce evidence before the first appellate authority, decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for a denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to consider evidence if produced by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that in cases where sales are accepted, quantitative records are maintained, and payments are made through banking channels, the entire purchase amount cannot be disallowed. Only the profit element can be brought to tax. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the impugned purchases.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. It found that the issue was already examined during the original assessment, and the reopening amounted to a change of opinion. Furthermore, since the notice was issued beyond four years, the proviso to Section 147 required a failure to disclose material facts, which was not established.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to represent effectively before the CIT(A) and decided to grant one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Excel sheet, found from a third party and lacking direct linkage or corroborative evidence to the assessee, cannot be the sole basis for additions. The disallowance of the cost of improvement was restricted to 25% as reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the Excel sheet, found from a third party and lacking direct linkage or corroborative evidence to the assessee, cannot be the sole basis for additions. The disallowance of the cost of improvement was restricted to 25% as reasonable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271D/271E of the Act can only be initiated if there are pending assessment proceedings or proceedings arising from an assessment order. Since no assessment proceedings were initiated in the assessee's case, the penalty is not valid.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition for duty drawback but partly sustained the addition for IGST refund. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the IGST refundable ledger, stating that the IGST refund received is not income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be allowed credit for TDS deducted and deposited, even if in a subsequent year, provided the corresponding income was offered to tax in the relevant year. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the TDS credit.
The Tribunal held that in cases where sales are accepted, quantitative records are maintained, and payments are made through banking channels, the entire purchase amount cannot be disallowed. Only the profit element can be brought to tax. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the impugned purchases.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-appearance, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the CIT(E). A cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) was non-speaking and lacked proper examination of the facts, the AO's findings, and the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal noted a complete failure by the CIT(A) to evaluate the points for consideration, apply independent mind, and provide an objective analysis, thereby disregarding principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, which is contrary to the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act, requiring the order to be in writing, state points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. The Tribunal also referred to Section 250(4) and Section 251(1)(a) and (b), emphasizing the CIT(A)'s obligation to make further inquiries if necessary and to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul an assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for passing a de novo appellate order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute, which are to be adjudicated independently by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's serious medical condition and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000.
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 2.28 crores was not taxable as capital gains in the hands of the assessee society, as it arose from Transferable Development Rights (TDR) which had no ascertainable cost of acquisition. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P for verification and allowed the ground regarding assessment status as a society rather than an AOP. Interest under Sections 234A to 234D was deemed consequential.
The tribunal held that while the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal in limine, the reasons for delay stated by the assessee, though not fully substantiated, were considered genuine and unintentional. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the case was remanded for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Excel sheet, found from a third party and lacking direct linkage or corroborative evidence to the assessee, cannot be the sole basis for additions. The disallowance of the cost of improvement was restricted to 25% as reasonable.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹81,00,000 was made merely on assumptions, surmises, and unverified third-party material, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted the lack of reliability of the entries recorded in the seized material and that the opportunity of cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon was not provided to the assessee. The Tribunal also observed that the seized material contained names like 'Viren Manna' and 'Shri Dolai', not matching the assessee's name, and that the AO's adverse inferences were based on premature observations without clinching evidence. The Tribunal relied on coordinate bench decisions holding that additions on account of alleged on-money cannot be sustained if they rest solely on uncorroborated third-party statements or documents without independent evidence linking the assessee. Therefore, the addition of ₹81,00,000 was deleted. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive notices due to an old, deactivated email ID. Considering this, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that DEPB income is intrinsically linked to export activity and should not be artificially segregated for gross profit computation. The addition made by excluding DEPB income from turnover was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the absence of malafide intention and citing various Supreme Court and ITAT decisions emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised the issue of the final assessment orders being time-barred under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act. However, the assessee stated they wished to keep this issue open and argue on merits. The Tribunal observed that the interplay between Section 153 and Section 144C of the Act, which governs the timelines for passing assessment orders in cases involving the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), was a matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 'Shelf Drilling' batch of cases, due to divergent views expressed by various High Courts. In light of this, the Tribunal refrained from recording a conclusive finding on the merits of the issue raised in the cross-objections (which pertained to the time-bar issue). The Tribunal stated that this issue would be governed by the final pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee in its cross-objections for all assessment years were dismissed. The appeals filed by the revenue were partly allowed, and the cross-appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal refrained from deciding the merits of the appeals concerning the interplay between Sections 144C and 153, as this issue was pending before the Supreme Court. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal partly allowed grounds 1 & 2, remanding the issue of capital gains for verification of tax payments by members. It dismissed ground 3, agreeing that payments made by the developer on behalf of the society were not income. Grounds 4 & 5 regarding Section 80P deductions were also dismissed, following previous ITAT decisions.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 56(2)(x) due to the difference between purchase price and stamp duty value does not constitute underreporting or misreporting of income for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 270A. The penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the issue concerning the interplay between Section 153 and Section 144C of the Act, which formed the basis of the assessee's cross-objections regarding the time-barring of assessment orders, was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 'Shelf Drilling' batch of matters. Divergent views had been expressed, and the controversy was referred for authoritative determination. Consequently, the Tribunal refrained from recording a conclusive finding on the merits of this issue, keeping it open to be governed by the Supreme Court's final pronouncement. This was considered a reasoned adjudication, discharging the Tribunal's statutory obligation. The grounds raised by the assessee in its cross-objections for all years were accordingly dismissed. The revenue's appeals were partly allowed, and the assessee's cross-appeals were dismissed. The specific issues raised in the revenue's grounds of appeal (1-14) were not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal, as the primary focus was on the procedural issue of time-barring, which was deferred pending the Supreme Court's decision. The operative direction was to dismiss the assessee's cross-appeals and partly allow the revenue's appeals, with the time-barring issue left undecided.