Loading ITAT cases…
155 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed details before the Tribunal. While these additional evidences were admitted, they required verification. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication of the issues on merit. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee must be given an opportunity of hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The specific findings on the additions of Rs. 2,82,000/- and Rs. 10,35,125/-, and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order, were not decided on merits but were subject to fresh verification by the AO. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the entire matter was remitted.
The tribunal held that the entire transportation expenses could not be disallowed merely for online non-verification of Form No. 402 when books were not rejected and sales were accepted. It sustained a 2% disallowance (Rs. 2,37,310/-) for transportation expenses. The disallowance of commission expenses was entirely deleted as payments were through banking channels, TDS was deducted, and agents accounted for them, with no specific evidence of bogusness.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely on a change of opinion if the Assessing Officer has conducted inquiries and taken a plausible view. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was found unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a coordinate bench decision in the case of M/s. Hilltop Ceramic, M/s. Acme Ceramic, and M/s. Noken Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. for the same assessment year. In that decision, the Tribunal had quashed the PCIT's order under section 263. The Tribunal noted that the assessee in ITA No. 735/Rjt/2026 had denied any transaction with Shri Haresh Vajubhai Sojitra. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- based on the information that the assessee had deposited cash in the bank accounts of M/s. Hari Enterprise, which was engaged in issuing cheques/DDs in lieu of cash on a commission basis. The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the transaction satisfactorily by stating no transaction occurred, and the addition was based on guesswork and conjecture. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- was deleted. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 735/Rjt/2026 was allowed. As both appeals involved identical issues, both were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided details of tax invoices, payment, and ledger account entries, as well as GST paid. The department had accepted the corresponding sales. While the supplier was declared untraceable, the Tribunal found it appropriate to accept the assessee's alternate plea. The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate a 6% profit on the purchase amount, which it found to be Rs. 1,88,800/- based on the records, rather than the Rs. 2,66,000/- initially added. The reasoning was that given the evidence of purchase and payment, and the acceptance of sales, a profit estimation was more equitable than a full disallowance, especially when the supplier was untraceable. The ratio decidendi is that where purchases are evidenced by invoices and payments, but the supplier is untraceable, a profit estimation at a reasonable rate (e.g., 6%) is a valid approach, as per High Court precedents, instead of a full disallowance under Section 69C.
The Tribunal held that the additions forming the basis for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) are currently the subject matter of quantum proceedings before the CIT(A), following the order of the co-ordinate bench dated 07.07.2021. Therefore, the foundation upon which the impugned penalties were levied is not yet final. In the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the penalty proceedings to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the conclusion of the quantum proceedings. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the outcome of the quantum proceedings and decide the penalty issue afresh, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present his case on merits. The consequential penalty proceedings were also set aside and restored for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a coordinate bench decision in the case of M/s. Hilltop Ceramic, M/s. Acme Ceramic, and M/s. Noken Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. for the same assessment year. In that decision, the Tribunal had quashed the PCIT's order under section 263. The Tribunal noted that the assessee in ITA No. 735/Rjt/2026 had denied any transaction with Shri Haresh Vajubhai Sojitra. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- based on the information that the assessee had deposited cash in the bank accounts of M/s. Hari Enterprise, which was engaged in issuing cheques/DDs in lieu of cash on a commission basis. The Tribunal found that the assessee had explained the transaction satisfactorily by stating no transaction occurred, and the addition was based on guesswork and conjecture. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- was deleted. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 735/Rjt/2026 was allowed. As both appeals involved identical issues, both were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the reasons recorded for reopening were based on an incorrect assumption of facts. The AO failed to consider the assessee's proportionate share in the jointly purchased property.
The Tribunal held that a minor delay in filing declarations in Form 27C or Form 27BA does not defeat the assessee's claim for non-collection of TCS, following the precedent of the jurisdictional High Court. The procedural lapse was not considered a reason to invoke the liability.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on vague and non-incriminating information from a third-party search without establishing a live link to the assessee's income. The addition was made without proper confrontation and cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to submit crucial documents and evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to furnish details. The assessee was directed to provide all relevant documents and comply with notices.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer is to examine the DVO's valuation report in detail, consider the assessee's objections regarding market conditions and property location, and re-compute capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on a factually incorrect assumption that the assessee had not filed a return. Since the reopening was based on a non-existent fact, it was invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the transfer pricing adjustment, finding that the transactions with Associated Enterprises were appropriately benchmarked and tax-neutral. The disallowance of interest was also deleted as no nexus between borrowed funds and interest-free advances was established. The addition on account of interest income was deleted as it was already accounted for in the books.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on an unsigned excel sheet found during a search at a third party's premises, lacking any nexus with the assessee or corroborative evidence. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the quantum addition issues for both assessment years to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The penalty proceedings were also set aside and restored for reconsideration after the quantum issues are decided.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted in the absence of exempt income. Regarding the loan additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, and therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's agricultural and trading activities, the Tribunal found some inconsistencies in the evidence. Therefore, an ad-hoc addition of 10% of the deposited amount was made.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was void ab initio because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued or validly served on the assessee after the filing of the return. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval under Section 151 was neither manually nor digitally signed, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order based on these invalid proceedings was quashed.
The Tribunal restored the quantum addition issues for both assessment years to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The penalty proceedings were also set aside and restored for reconsideration after the quantum issues are decided.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted in the absence of exempt income. Regarding the loan additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, and therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal restored the quantum addition issues for both assessment years to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The penalty proceedings were also set aside and restored for reconsideration after the quantum issues are decided.
The Tribunal noted that while Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court decisions suggest interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of compensation, the assessee failed to provide complete details and the relevant award. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee an opportunity to produce all details.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was invalid as the Revenue failed to establish the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. It also noted issues with the approval process for reopening.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to miscommunication. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adequate opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit all relevant documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A), thus violating natural justice principles.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documentary evidence of transactions through banking channels, including ledger accounts and bank statements. The Tribunal also noted that TDS was deducted on interest paid and the loan was repaid.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was unjustified as the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the decline in gross profit rate and the AO did not point out any specific defects. The Tribunal also found that the canteen expenses were not claimed twice, as demonstrated by the assessee's reconciliation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A), thus violating natural justice principles.
The Tribunal held that while the entire amount could not be treated as the assessee's income due to unsatisfactory explanation of the source, the entire receipt also could not be treated as income. It was decided to estimate the income element embedded in the transaction at 10%.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documentary evidence of transactions through banking channels, including ledger accounts and bank statements. The Tribunal also noted that TDS was deducted on interest paid and the loan was repaid.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documentary evidence of transactions through banking channels, including ledger accounts and bank statements. The Tribunal also noted that TDS was deducted on interest paid and the loan was repaid.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had no bank account with the cooperative society in question, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was baseless. Consequently, the penalty imposed also lacked foundation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the 'source of the source' as required by the first proviso to Section 68. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had no bank account with the cooperative society in question, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was baseless. Consequently, the penalty imposed also lacked foundation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided to be sufficient cause. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, violating the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that the delay was not wilful. The matter was then restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the CBDT's prescribed monetary limit for appeals, warranting dismissal. Furthermore, even on merits, the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee had disclosed the claim transparently and there was no evidence of deliberate misreporting.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default because it was bound by the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court, which prevented it from deducting TDS. Consequently, the demand under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) and the penalty under section 271C were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court. Consequently, the demand under section 201(1) and 201(1A) and the penalty under section 271C were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of making the donation through banking channels to a registered political party. Therefore, the assessee cannot be faulted for the party's failure to account for the donation in its own return.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default as it was bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court. Consequently, the demand under section 201(1) and 201(1A) and the penalty under section 271C were deleted.