Loading ITAT cases…
684 orders · Page 1 of 14
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in conformity with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires the order to be in writing, stating points for determination, the decision, and the reasons. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions and deleted the addition made by the AO treating them as bogus. It also upheld the deletion of addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit, finding the identity and creditworthiness of creditors established.
The Tribunal considered the facts and the decisions relied upon by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had applied the ratio of various High Court decisions, estimating the profit element at 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases and deleting the balance addition. The Tribunal found that the facts of the case were similar to those relied upon by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions based on mismatches between figures without detailed verification or pointing out specific defects in the books. The CIT(A) had found that differences arose due to gross vs. net presentation and inclusion of GST/statutory levies, and no independent inquiry was conducted by the AO. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that the CIT(A)'s reconciliation was incorrect or perverse.
The Tribunal noted that the limitation period for issuing notice under section 148 was extended due to TOLA. However, subsequent notices and orders were found to be contrary to Supreme Court judgments. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to contradict the Commissioner's findings.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions and deleted the addition made by the AO treating them as bogus. It also upheld the deletion of addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit, finding the identity and creditworthiness of creditors established.
The Ld. Commissioner set aside the assessment order to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, without delving into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the legal grounds and pass a fresh assessment order within the time limit prescribed.
While acknowledging the assessee's lack of due diligence and repeated non-compliance, the Tribunal noted that the appeal was disposed of ex parte without merits. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice and natural justice, the assessee was granted one final opportunity.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions. The Tribunal noted that the additions were made on account of alleged 'on-money' payments based on documents found during the search of the Rubberwala Group. However, the Tribunal found that in a series of decisions by Coordinate Benches on identical issues and similar facts, such additions were directed to be deleted. The Tribunal relied on the principle of binding precedent and judicial consistency. Specifically, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had denied making any cash payments over and above the agreement value, and the AO had neither confronted the assessee with the material found during the search nor provided any evidence explicitly mentioning the assessee's name for paying 'on-money'. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the assessee was not provided with the adverse material, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination granted, which amounts to a breach of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal cited various case laws, including Rajesh Jain, Pravin K Purohit, and others, where similar additions were deleted due to lack of corroborative evidence and violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB should be condoned as the assessee showed sufficient cause. It also noted that the contentious clauses in the MOA were amended, rendering the CIT(E)'s objection academic. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Ld. Commissioner set aside the assessment order to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, without delving into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the legal grounds and pass a fresh assessment order within the time limit prescribed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing Form 10AB, and therefore, the delay should be condoned. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's ruling in Wipro Ltd. by noting that Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act explicitly grants the CIT(E) the power to condone delays upon being satisfied of a reasonable cause, unlike the provisions considered in the Wipro Ltd. case. Regarding the Trust Deed clauses, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that they had initiated the process to amend the deed to remove ambiguity and align with Section 11. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to file the amended Trust Deed at the earliest. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing that no order should be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The issue of registration under Section 80G was also set aside and restored for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions and deleted the addition made by the AO treating them as bogus. It also upheld the deletion of addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit, finding the identity and creditworthiness of creditors established.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the Revenue failed to provide direct incriminating material against the assessee and offer an opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee had also paid more than the stamp duty value for the property.
The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim. It also noted that disallowance under Section 14A is to be limited to the value of investments yielding exempt income, following established precedents. In one appeal, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income, while in the other, the ground of appeal regarding dissatisfaction was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not appear for hearings, and no adjournment request was filed, thus the appeal was decided based on available material. The CIT(A)'s finding that the loss from penny stock trading was not declared in IDS, 2016, was not controverted by the appellant. Therefore, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not opted for the DTVSV Scheme 2024 for the assessment year in question. The impugned order was therefore recalled and quashed.
The assessee filed an application to withdraw the current appeal, stating that a subsequent application for registration under section 12AB was filed and a separate appeal against that order was also filed. The assessee requested permission to withdraw the current appeal and pursue the appeal against the later order.
The Tribunal found that the death in the CA's family constituted a 'sufficient cause' for the delay. Therefore, it directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions. The Tribunal noted that the additions were made on account of alleged 'on-money' payments based on documents found during the search of the Rubberwala Group. However, the Tribunal found that in a series of decisions by Coordinate Benches on identical issues and similar facts, such additions were directed to be deleted. The Tribunal relied on the principle of binding precedent and judicial consistency. Specifically, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had denied making any cash payments over and above the agreement value, and the AO had neither confronted the assessee with the material found during the search nor provided any evidence explicitly mentioning the assessee's name for paying 'on-money'. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the assessee was not provided with the adverse material, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination granted, which amounts to a breach of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal cited various case laws, including Rajesh Jain, Pravin K Purohit, and others, where similar additions were deleted due to lack of corroborative evidence and violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the Revenue failed to provide direct incriminating material against the assessee and offer an opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee had also paid more than the stamp duty value for the property.
The Tribunal held that the first proviso to section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act grants the power to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to condone delay if there is a reasonable cause. The Tribunal distinguished this from the case of Wipro Ltd. where no such power existed. The assessee's delay in filing Form No. 10AB was due to inadvertence and lack of awareness of new procedural requirements, which constituted a sufficient cause for condonation, especially considering the subsequent amendment of the MOA. The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the MOA clauses permitting expenditure outside India had been rendered academic as the assessee had amended its MOA to drop such references. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G to the file of the learned CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. The delay in filing Form No. 10AB was condoned, and the amended MOA was to be considered. The assessee was directed to provide necessary documentation. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded sufficient dissatisfaction to invoke Section 14A and Rule 8D. The disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be computed considering only investments that yielded exempt income.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already set aside the ex-parte assessment and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. However, the Tribunal considered that challenges to the "very inception of proceedings" (jurisdiction) must precede the adjudication of merits. The Tribunal found that foundational aspects regarding limitation (applicability of Deepak Steel), the issuance of the notice under Section 148 post-01.04.2021, and compliance with Section 151A and CBDT notifications were not discernible from the record and required factual verification. Since the assessment was already set aside by the CIT(A), the Tribunal expanded the scope of the remand. The AO was directed to adjudicate upon the legal validity of the notice under Section 148 concerning limitation and the applicability of Deepak Steel, the validity of the notice in light of the Faceless Assessment Scheme and Section 151A, and if jurisdiction was validly assumed, then to decide the matter on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence. All issues were kept open, and the AO was directed to pass a reasoned order. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the legal or factual issues.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient cause for the delay in filing Form 10AB, and therefore, the delay should be condoned. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's ruling in Wipro Ltd. by noting that Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act explicitly grants the CIT(E) the power to condone delays upon being satisfied of a reasonable cause, unlike the provisions considered in the Wipro Ltd. case. Regarding the Trust Deed clauses, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that they had initiated the process to amend the deed to remove ambiguity and align with Section 11. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to file the amended Trust Deed at the earliest. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing that no order should be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The issue of registration under Section 80G was also set aside and restored for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that once sales are recorded in the books, offered to tax, and the books of account are not rejected, the profit from such sales cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit. Taxing gross sales as income is impermissible. If sales are considered fictitious, it should lead to an adjustment of turnover or rejection of books, not estimation of higher profit on already recorded sales.
The tribunal observed that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction and provide documentary evidence to counter the Revenue's findings. Relying on High Court decisions, the tribunal held that the increase in share price was unrealistic and the transaction was sham.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions and deleted the addition made by the AO treating them as bogus. It also upheld the deletion of addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit, finding the identity and creditworthiness of creditors established.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the Revenue failed to provide direct incriminating material against the assessee and offer an opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee had also paid more than the stamp duty value for the property.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's case falls under Article 16(2) of the India-UK DTAA, not Article 16(1). The income accrues and arises in India and is liable to be taxed in India. However, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to examine the assessee's claim for credit of taxes paid in the UK.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions and deleted the addition made by the AO treating them as bogus. It also upheld the deletion of addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit, finding the identity and creditworthiness of creditors established.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's books of account was improper. Consequently, the estimation of income at 0.5% of sales turnover by the lower appellate authority was also found to be unsustainable, as it relied on the rejected books.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions and deleted the addition made by the AO treating them as bogus. It also upheld the deletion of addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit, finding the identity and creditworthiness of creditors established.
The Tribunal noted that similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee by coordinate benches. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the addition was based on third-party statements without corroborative material and without providing an opportunity for cross-examination, thus violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear to substantiate the claim that the transaction was not sham and failed to provide documentary evidence for preferential allotment of shares. In absence of corroborative evidence, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear to substantiate the claim that the transaction was not sham and failed to provide documentary evidence for preferential allotment of shares. In absence of corroborative evidence, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the primary burden to establish the existence of a credit entry in the assessee's books lies with the Assessing Officer. Without concrete material demonstrating such a credit, the invocation of section 68 is unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions and deleted the addition made by the AO treating them as bogus. It also upheld the deletion of addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit, finding the identity and creditworthiness of creditors established.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to examine the issue for which the case was reopened, specifically the taxability of notional ALV on unsold flats. The reassessment order was a mechanical narration of procedural steps without any discussion or analysis of the core issue, rendering it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was based on third-party statements and documents found during a search on a group, but the assessee denied the cash payments. Crucially, the Assessing Officer failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the third parties whose statements were relied upon.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions and deleted the addition made by the AO. It also upheld the deletion of the addition of unexplained cash credit, finding that the loans were accounted for as intra-corporate deposits, largely repaid through banking channels, and the identity and creditworthiness of lenders were established.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions and deleted the addition made by the AO treating them as bogus. It also upheld the deletion of addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit, finding the identity and creditworthiness of creditors established.
The Tribunal held that the core controversy revolved around a "timing mismatch" between the recognition of income by the assessee on an accrual basis and the deduction of tax by the payees. It is a fundamental principle that the same income cannot be taxed twice. If the assessee had already offered the receipts to tax in AY 2014-15, taxing them again in AY 2015-16 solely because TDS was reflected in the latter year would lead to double taxation, which is impermissible. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a sufficient opportunity to present a detailed reconciliation before the AO, and the CIT(A) failed to examine fresh evidence, such as the profit and loss account for the preceding year, in the correct perspective. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the AO for a de novo verification. The AO was directed to conduct a verification of the reconciliation statement, examine bills issued in AY 2014-15 to verify if income was offered, and allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to produce necessary evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the Revenue failed to provide direct incriminating material against the assessee and offer an opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee had also paid more than the stamp duty value for the property.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made additions based on mismatches between figures without detailed verification or pointing out specific defects in the books. The CIT(A) had found that differences arose due to gross vs. net presentation and inclusion of GST/statutory levies, and no independent inquiry was conducted by the AO. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that the CIT(A)'s reconciliation was incorrect or perverse.
The Tribunal held that there was no reason to suspect the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions and deleted the addition made by the AO treating them as bogus. It also upheld the deletion of addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit, finding the identity and creditworthiness of creditors established.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 8% solely based on a prior Tribunal order for A.Y. 2011-12, without independently examining the facts for the current assessment year or considering subsequent binding judicial pronouncements that altered the legal landscape.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice, though dated March 31, 2021, was dispatched on April 1, 2021. Therefore, it was governed by the amended procedure under Section 148A, which was not followed. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based solely on third-party information without proper corroboration, seizure of cash, or examination of the assessee's records. The Tribunal also noted the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination, breaching principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based solely on third-party information without proper corroboration, seizure of cash, or examination of the assessee's records. The Tribunal also noted the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination, breaching principles of natural justice.