Loading ITAT cases…
684 orders · Page 14 of 14
For flats 705 and 502, the difference between stamp duty value and agreement value was within the 10% tolerance limit. For flat B-703, the matter was restored to the AO to refer the valuation to the DVO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following the procedure under Rule 46A, which requires giving the AO an opportunity to verify the evidence and provide a report. This procedural lapse undermines fairness and the foundation of the dispute. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the indexed cost of acquisition benefit is allowable for computing capital gains under Section 11, as statutory provisions permit such deductions. The AO's disallowance was not in line with statutory provisions and judicial precedents. The Tribunal also found that the claim for deduction under Section 11(1A) and the indexed cost of acquisition are mutually exclusive and there is no bar to claiming both. Regarding the donation, the first appellate authority rightly remanded the issue to the AO for verification.
For AY 2015-16, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 01/04/2021, making it invalid as per Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal. For AY 2016-17, the sanction for the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, rendering the notice invalid.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for Shanti Seva Nidhi was allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on grounds of commercial expediency. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for Shanti Seva Nidhi was allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on grounds of commercial expediency. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the impugned addition was made solely on the basis of software recovered from M/s. REPL, which allegedly indicated unaccounted transactions. The material from the search was not supplied to the appellant, nor was an opportunity for cross-examination granted, despite the appellant requesting it. This breach of natural justice led to the addition not being sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment reopening. On merits, it noted the Ld.DR's submission of a SEBI Adjudication Order confirming price manipulation in the 'Nouveau Global' scrip, thereby establishing that such extraordinary profits from a manipulated stock warranted an addition under section 68. However, because this crucial SEBI order was not available to either party during the original assessment, the Bench decided to remit the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was obtained from an authority not specified under Section 151(ii) of the Act, rendering the order under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148 bad in law. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessment order made an addition of Rs. 60,07,700/-, there was a mistake in the computation of tax liability, resulting in NIL tax. However, the Tribunal also acknowledged that the assessee consistently explained the cash deposits as collections from members and submitted supporting documentation. Neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) had made specific findings on this explanation.
For AY 2015-16, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 01/04/2021, making it invalid as per Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal. For AY 2016-17, the sanction for the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, rendering the notice invalid.
The Tribunal held that while there was a significant delay in filing the appeal, the circumstances presented, including issues with the trust's management during the Covid-19 period and a serious ailment of the person handling tax matters, constituted sufficient cause for condonation. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delays.
The Tribunal noted that while assessment and penalty proceedings are independent, the CIT(A) did not specifically examine the assessee's explanation regarding the recovery of old debts which appeared in Form-26AS due to TDS deduction. The explanation involved reconciliation of figures across multiple assessment years.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. They also noted that the Explanation to Section 14A is not retrospective, aligning with established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The appellate authority is required to decide appeals on merits after considering facts and submissions. An appeal cannot be dismissed merely for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention. It was observed that the CIT(A) had indeed referred to facts and additions pertaining to AY 2017-18, leading to a factual mismatch with the assessment order for AY 2016-17.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It reasoned that the AO had made a conscious decision after due inquiry, and the PCIT could not substitute his own judgment for that of the AO without establishing the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It noted that the filing of the audit report (Form 10CCB) was directory, not mandatory, and that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return. The Tribunal followed established judicial precedents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the applications, citing the assessee's bonafide belief and lack of awareness of new provisions. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of both Section 12AB and Section 80G applications.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should be calculated only on investments from which exempt income was earned. Regarding business expenses, since the assessee is a public company with audited accounts and the expenses were routine and supported by evidence, and no additions were made in subsequent years, the AO's addition was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in both appeals. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IC (Rs. 3,15,64,674/-) and the addition of Rs. 3,45,376/-. This was based on the consistent view of various courts that filing of the audit report is directory, not mandatory, and that declarations can be filed before the assessment is completed. The Tribunal noted that similar claims had been allowed in previous years by the ITAT. Regarding the alleged bogus expense from M/s. Radhika Enterprises, the judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's finding on the restricted addition of 12%, but it implies upholding the CIT(A)'s order which had partly allowed the appeal in earlier years and the department had filed further appeals. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee should not be denied the deduction under Section 80IC (Rs. 2,82,81,492/-) on technical grounds. The Tribunal reiterated that the filing of the audit report (Form 10CCB) within the due date, coupled with a reasonable cause for the delayed return filing, and supported by judicial precedents like CIT vs. GM Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd., justified allowing the deduction. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that it would be appropriate to grant the appellant an opportunity of hearing for a just and fair disposal of the matter, subject to appropriate costs. The Tribunal acknowledged that the First Appellate Authority should have examined the merits of the additions.
The Tribunal held that it would be appropriate to grant the appellant an opportunity of hearing for a just and fair disposal of the matter, subject to appropriate costs. The Tribunal acknowledged that the First Appellate Authority should have examined the merits of the additions.
The Tribunal noted a typographical error in a previous order regarding the amount declared by the assessee as a consequence of the APA. The Assessing Officer (AO) had correctly considered the figures based on the modified return. The grounds related to the modified return and taxability of interest were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the applications, citing the assessee's bonafide belief and lack of awareness of new provisions. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of both Section 12AB and Section 80G applications.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Act were illegal and void ab initio. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised the issue of the validity of reopening before the CIT(A), who failed to deal with it properly. The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sejal Jewellery (supra) and other coordinate bench decisions, concluded that since incriminating materials were found during a search under section 132 and these materials pertained to the assessee, the AO should have proceeded only under section 153C read with section 153A of the Act. The non-obstante clause in section 153C makes it clear that the legislative intent was for the AO to proceed only under this section upon receipt of seized material belonging to a third party. The AO's action under section 147/148 circumvented the statutory safeguards in section 153C. Consequently, grounds 1 and 2 were allowed, quashing the notice under section 147 and all consequent actions. The remaining grounds (3 and 4) were rendered academic and left open.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had a substantial opening cash balance from AY 2016-17, which was disclosed and taxed. The AO and CIT(A) had not conducted independent investigations and had ignored the assessee's cash system of accounting. Considering these facts, the Tribunal found an ad-hoc disallowance of 10% of the addition sufficient to avoid revenue leakage.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on conjectures and surmises without concrete evidence or proper validation. The seized material did not conclusively prove the allegations, and the revenue failed to provide evidence of cash trails or recipient identity.
The Tribunal held that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be justified on an estimated addition upheld by the appellate authorities. The reasoning was based on a consistent view of coordinate benches of the ITAT, Mumbai, and various High Court decisions, including CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P.) Ltd., CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries, CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., and CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. These precedents establish that penalty levied on estimated additions is unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's case, the addition was made on an estimation basis of 12.5% of the purchase amount due to the parties involved issuing accommodation bills. Therefore, following the cited decisions, the penalty was deleted. Both grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), as co-operative banks are considered co-operative societies. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), as co-operative banks are considered co-operative societies. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause shown by the appellant. On merits, the Tribunal found that the appellant should be granted an opportunity to produce necessary documents to support cash receipts and expenditures, subject to costs.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application without ensuring effective service of notices and granting a proper opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice. The order was based solely on alleged non-compliance, not on merits.
The Tribunal held that the burden under section 68 lies on the assessee to explain the nature and source of credits. Mere reflection in books or confirmation of substantive additions in the hands of beneficiaries does not absolve the assessee.