Loading ITAT cases…
1,140 orders · Page 13 of 23
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 80,43,000/- as unexplained money due to lack of substantiation for the cash deposits. It also confirmed the assessment of Rs. 7,20,41,250/- as business income and the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- as undisclosed business receipts, citing insufficient evidence to the contrary.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid because the AO failed to issue the mandatory intimation to the assessee as required by Section 144B(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. This procedural lapse rendered the assessment non-est.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had not considered the submissions made by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(Exemptions) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10-IEA is the prescribed method for opting out of the new tax regime, and the assessee cannot opt out otherwise. However, if the assessee is considered to be under the old tax regime, they should be allowed deductions under Chapter VI-A.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the jurisdictional grounds regarding the validity of reopening under the first proviso to section 147 and the inconsistency in the reassessment computation. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be rejected solely due to a supplier's non-responsiveness if the assessee provides a complete audit trail of physical and financial proofs. The revenue failed to provide contrary evidence to disprove the genuineness of the purchases.
The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) only denies CSR expenditure as business expenditure and does not prohibit deduction under Section 80G. The Assessing Officer had conducted a specific enquiry and adopted a legally sustainable view, which could not be disturbed under Section 263.
The Tribunal found no fault with the documents submitted by the assessee and no direct evidence of price rigging. Relying on decisions of coordinate benches, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the assessee's illiteracy and communication gap, and the seizure of vital documents. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary evidence.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the Assessing Officer's proposals for income enhancement. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable as there was no escapement of income, the income already being declared. It also clarified that set-off of losses is allowable against income under Section 115BBE for assessment years prior to 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening did not establish a live link between the information received and the belief that income had escaped assessment. Furthermore, on merits, the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness of lenders, and genuineness of loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) deleted the addition based on factual verification not conducted during assessment, without confronting the AO. Therefore, the deletion was uncalled for, and the AO's order was restored.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to consider the previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case. If the facts are identical, the AO is directed to delete the additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54F cannot be rejected solely because Section 54 was mentioned in the return instead of Section 54F, especially when all material facts were disclosed. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the entire purchase amount cannot be disallowed, but only the profit element embedded in alleged bogus purchases can be brought to tax. The profit was estimated at 3% of such purchases, consistent with previous years.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, acknowledging the possibility of an ex-parte order and the need for a fair hearing. The Departmental Representative did not object to this remand.
The Tribunal deleted the addition for unexplained SBN deposits as the assessee established the source from business receipts. For unexplained loans, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of lender's creditworthiness and repayment details.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay, and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee. The penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the interest under section 201(1A) and the fee under section 234E are statutory consequences of delay and cannot be waived on grounds of reasonable cause or hardship. Compliance within the same financial year does not cure the delay.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to identify and establish the specific circumstances of misreporting under Section 270A(9). The mere omission of income, even if substantial, does not automatically constitute misreporting without proving the specific statutory ingredients.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal noted that the 12AB registration rejection was consequential to the 80G rejection. Since the 12AB matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, the 80G application also needed reconsideration.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay, and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee. The penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's proportionate share in the sale consideration and the actual capital gain or loss needed to be factually verified. It was also noted that Section 50C operates by substituting the value for computing capital gain/loss, not as a separate addition.
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly rejected the Assessing Officer's proposals for income enhancement. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that the CIT(A) had not verified the facts regarding service of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence showing subsequent repayment of the loan and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not have the opportunity to examine this evidence.
The Tribunal held that the 30% discount was not a payment for repair services as it was uniformly applied, irrespective of actual repair costs or whether repairs were undertaken. Therefore, TDS was not required, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the impugned addition to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide the assessee with an opportunity for cross-examination and to conduct a fresh adjudication after further inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the entire purchase amount cannot be disallowed, but only the profit element embedded in alleged bogus purchases can be brought to tax. The profit was estimated at 3% of such purchases, consistent with previous years.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the transfer pricing adjustment and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), finding that the payments were not chargeable to tax in India. However, the grounds related to foreign tax credit and foreign exchange loss were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that investment in fixed deposits for a period of 6 months or more qualifies as acquiring 'another capital asset' under Section 11(1A) as per CBDT Instruction No. 883. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for write-off of unrecoverable TDS as application of income.
The Tribunal held that the entire purchase amount cannot be disallowed, but only the profit element embedded in alleged bogus purchases can be brought to tax. The profit was estimated at 3% of such purchases, consistent with previous years.
The Tribunal held that Section 28(via) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable for conversions prior to April 1, 2019. The issue of deemed rental income for vacant flats was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to lack of evidence of bona fide efforts to let them out.
The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D. It also ruled that notional fair value adjustments under Ind-AS should not inflate the investment value for disallowance calculation, directing the AO to use the actual cost of investments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and before the Tribunal, citing the assessee's reliance on a consultant with health issues and lack of proper notice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that mere non-challenge of quantum additions does not automatically establish concealment of income for penalty purposes. The Tribunal found that the financial statements did not support the penalty for disallowance of interest and unexplained cash credit.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, including a brokerage bill and balance sheets, as it was crucial for a just adjudication. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of this new evidence.
The Tribunal held that the subscription fees were not in the nature of royalty as the assessee only provided access to an online platform and did not transfer the right to use any copyright or process. Therefore, the receipts were considered business income.
The Tribunal held that since there was no variation between the income returned in response to the Section 148 notice and the income assessed by the Assessing Officer, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. The Tribunal relied on the principle that penalty is not leviable when the Assessing Officer accepts the assessee's disclosure without making any additions or disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the registration/approval should operate without any stipulation or conditional rider. The impugned stipulation was deleted, relying on a coordinate bench decision and the fact that the High Court's order had not yet been challenged.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's TNMM benchmarking and the TPO's application of RSM based on ad hoc allocation was not sustainable. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the income using TNMM with the assessee's selected comparables.
The Tribunal restored the issue of additions related to builder financing and Section 56(2)(x)(b) to the AO for fresh determination after valuation. The denial of set-off of brought-forward long-term capital loss was set aside and restored to the AO for examination.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the search warrant was not infirm. However, the additions related to agricultural receipts and commission required reconsideration due to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of a key witness.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the search warrant was not infirm. However, the additions related to agricultural receipts and commission required reconsideration due to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of a key witness.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the search warrant was not infirm. However, the additions related to agricultural receipts and commission required reconsideration due to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of a key witness.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the search warrant was not infirm. However, the additions related to agricultural receipts and commission required reconsideration due to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of a key witness.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the search warrant was not infirm. However, the additions related to agricultural receipts and commission required reconsideration due to the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of a key witness.
The Tribunal restored the issue of additions related to builder financing and Section 56(2)(x)(b) to the AO for fresh determination after valuation. The denial of set-off of brought-forward long-term capital loss was set aside and restored to the AO for examination.