Loading ITAT cases…
37 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal held that additions based on documents seized from a third party can only be made if proceedings are initiated under Section 153C. Since proceedings were initiated under Section 153A, the assessment was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that additions based on documents seized from a third party can only be made if proceedings are initiated under Section 153C. Since proceedings were initiated under Section 153A, the assessment was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre was without jurisdiction because the provisions for faceless assessment under Section 151A were notified after the assessment order was passed. Consequently, the assessment was quashed as null and void.
For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,67,50,000/- based on documents seized from a third party, Shri Laxman Tikmani, was invalid. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in ITA No. 332/PAT/2025, which determined that additions based on seized material from a third party can only be made if proceedings are initiated under Section 153C of the Act. Since the assessment was framed under Section 153A, this addition was deleted. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed as infructuous. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground challenging the AO's jurisdiction. It held that the addition of Rs. 6,36,585/- based on document SKM-01, found during a search at a third party's premises, was invalid because the proceedings were initiated under Section 153A, not Section 153C. The Tribunal applied its reasoning from the AY 2020-21 case mutatis mutandis, allowing the assessee's appeal. The operative direction was to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account and the subsequent addition by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed sales in its profit and loss account and that most suppliers had confirmed the transactions. The Tribunal found no specific defects in the assessee's books of account.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for undisclosed sales, agreeing that profit should be estimated on unaccounted purchases using the GP rate. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the expense disallowance, as estimation of income already accounted for this.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had accepted fresh evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating procedural rules. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on several grounds and remanded the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the expenses, finding it to be a reasonable disallowance in the absence of further evidence from the assessee. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is an old trust and the delay in filing was due to lack of conversancy with complex provisions. The trust deed was amended to include a dissolution clause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue for a fresh hearing.
The CIT(A) held that the AO failed to bring on record evidence connecting the credits to the assessee's income and directed the AO to grant relief for credits directly linked to the institution where the assessee served, as these could not be taxed as unexplained. The CIT(A)'s order was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of cash found in the locker and the amount gifted to children, stating that the assessee failed to provide plausible evidence to explain the source of the cash. The assessee's admission of undisclosed income was considered credible evidence.
The Tribunal held that no transfer of property had taken place within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the fact that the JDA itself did not involve any other performance of an act by either party, indicating no transfer of rights. The Tribunal noted that a separate agreement for share distribution of the constructed area was executed in FY 2015-16, and the assessee had already offered to tax capital gains arising from the sale/transfer in AY 2016-17. The Tribunal found that the builder was to obtain permissions and that the agreement for share distribution was executed much later. The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia, where substantial payments were made at the time of agreement. The Tribunal relied on the Patna High Court decision in ACIT Vs. Dr. Mahabir Prasad and the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in C.S. Atwal Vs. CIT, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, which held that possession delivered under such agreements is as a license, not a transfer. The Tribunal also noted that in a similar case involving Godrej Properties Ltd., the development agreement was annulled and no construction or sale occurred, and no consideration was received or accrued. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's addition on the basis of the Development Agreement was without merit. The AO was directed to delete the capital gains computed. The issue of conversion of land into 'stock-in-trade' was also addressed, with the Tribunal stating that the treatment in books is not the sole factor, but a series of events and circumstances are relevant. The Tribunal found no transfer or gains in the relevant AY.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in all grounds. Regarding prior period expenses, the Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had clearly determined that the expenses were related to the current financial year and were wrongly debited as prior period expenses. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds on this issue. Concerning delayed payment surcharge, the Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that only doubtful recoveries were not recognized and that the amount was not an accrued receipt. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this point. For interest on State funds and Government funds, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had found that the interest accrued on grants or funds received from the Government were required to be refunded along with interest, and thus no addition was warranted. The Tribunal also found that income accrued and due, shown as receivables, did not represent current year income. In all these instances, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the appellate order and upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletions, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the documents were seized from the auditor's office, not the assessee's premises, and that the AO failed to provide cross-examination of the auditor. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the expenses were not prior period expenses, the surcharge was not an accrued receipt, and the interest/income related to grants that were either refunded or already accounted for. The cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the documents were seized from the auditor's office, not the assessee's premises, and that the AO failed to provide cross-examination of the auditor. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s well-reasoned order.
The Tribunal, relying on the decision in CIT vs. Oxford University Press, held that the expenditure was for repairs and renovation of an existing building and did not create a new asset or enduring benefit. The Tribunal opined that the quantum of expenditure and its enduring benefits are immaterial for determining revenue expenditure.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the prior period expenses were related to the current financial year, the delayed payment surcharge was not an accrued receipt, and the interest on government funds and accrued income were either not income of the current year or were properly accounted for as per grant conditions.
The Tribunal held that no transfer of property had taken place within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. The reasoning was that the LDA primarily allowed the builder to construct, with the assessee to receive 50% of the constructed area. Crucially, the builder obtained permissions for construction only on 08.08.2018, which was after the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal found no other act indicating a transfer of rights. The ratio is that a development agreement where possession is not transferred and construction permissions are obtained post-assessment year does not constitute a transfer for capital gains purposes. The Tribunal relied on the Patna High Court decision in ACIT Vs. Dr. Mahabir Prasad, the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in C.S. Atwal Vs. CIT (upheld by the Supreme Court), and the co-ordinate bench decision in Fardeen Khan vs. ACIT (affirmed by the Bombay High Court). Consequently, the addition of ₹3,50,79,350 as long-term capital gain was deleted. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal held that the amount of ₹5,00,000 for demolition was not received by the assessee during the impugned financial year. Possession of the land was handed over on 08.09.2018, after obtaining construction permissions. Therefore, this amount could not be brought to tax in AY 2014-15 and was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication in the year of receipt/demolition. Ground No. 2 was allowed, and Ground No. 4 was allowed for statistical purposes.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 40-day delay, finding the reason that the bank had amalgamated and ceased to exist, and notices were served on inaccessible emails, as insufficient cause. The Tribunal, however, found the reasons for the delay to be justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not granted a proper opportunity to the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back to the AO.
The Tribunal held that NCDC is a Public Financial Institution as it is declared as such under Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956, and thus, the disallowance of interest payable to NCDC under Section 43B was upheld for the periods where it was not paid by the due date. However, regarding a portion of the interest payment, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and allowance as per the Proviso to Section 43B.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal noted that the commission income was duly reported and supported by evidence, and no adverse material was found during the search.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal noted that the commission income was duly reported and supported by evidence, and no adverse material was found during the search.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in dismissing the Revenue's appeals for AYs 2020-21, 2022-23, and 2023-24. Regarding the addition of Rs. 7,33,57,570/- (undisclosed business income from sale of Raj Niwas Pan Masala), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) found that the turnover in question pertaining to grain items was fully disclosed in audited financial statements, supported by comprehensive documentation and banking channels, and that the AO's approach of rejecting sales while accepting purchases was flawed, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the addition was not sustainable. For the addition of Rs. 8,96,750/- (bogus commission income), the Tribunal found that the assessee had credited this income in the P&L account, offered it to tax, and provided supporting evidence. No adverse material was found during the search, and the books were audited. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal for AY 2021-22 concerning the addition of Rs. 36,32,782/- on account of stamp value and actual property value, finding that the addition was rightly made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in dismissing the Revenue's appeals for AYs 2020-21, 2022-23, and 2023-24. Regarding the addition of Rs. 7,33,57,570/- (undisclosed business income from sale of Raj Niwas Pan Masala), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) found that the turnover in question pertaining to grain items was fully disclosed in audited financial statements, supported by comprehensive documentation and banking channels, and that the AO's approach of rejecting sales while accepting purchases was flawed, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the addition was not sustainable. For the addition of Rs. 8,96,750/- (bogus commission income), the Tribunal found that the assessee had credited this income in the P&L account, offered it to tax, and provided supporting evidence. No adverse material was found during the search, and the books were audited. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal for AY 2021-22 concerning the addition of Rs. 36,32,782/- on account of stamp value and actual property value, finding that the addition was rightly made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in dismissing the Revenue's appeals for AYs 2020-21, 2022-23, and 2023-24. Regarding the addition of Rs. 7,33,57,570/- (undisclosed business income from sale of Raj Niwas Pan Masala), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) found that the turnover in question pertaining to grain items was fully disclosed in audited financial statements, supported by comprehensive documentation and banking channels, and that the AO's approach of rejecting sales while accepting purchases was flawed, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the addition was not sustainable. For the addition of Rs. 8,96,750/- (bogus commission income), the Tribunal found that the assessee had credited this income in the P&L account, offered it to tax, and provided supporting evidence. No adverse material was found during the search, and the books were audited. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal for AY 2021-22 concerning the addition of Rs. 36,32,782/- on account of stamp value and actual property value, finding that the addition was rightly made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had rejected the application based on a misinterpretation of the time limits for filing. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for a fresh examination on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed without allowing for any expenditures towards the property's purchase due to a lack of proper explanation from the assessee. The assessee's counsel requested one more chance to submit documents and explanations.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening the assessment were clear, unambiguous, and supported by evidence, fulfilling all the requirements for valid reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment was found to be incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the reason provided for the delay, blaming the counsel, did not constitute a 'reasonable cause' for condonation. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide the AO with an opportunity to be heard or provide a remand report regarding the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that the AO should have been given a chance to examine the evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to support claims of joint investment and funding by family members. The tribunal also noted the assessee did not complain about coercion during the survey, making the retraction an afterthought.
The Tribunal noted that additional documents were filed before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A but were not entertained. The Ld. DR could not controvert the assessee's submissions. Therefore, in the interests of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present documents.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not produced the required details before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, and considering the request for one more opportunity, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is granted a proper opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues in all three appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.