Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 5 of 9
The Tribunal held that for AY 2004-05, the addition was made without proper incriminating material, hence the Revenue's appeal failed and the assessee's cross-objection succeeded. For AY 2005-06 and AY 2008-09, the appeals were similarly dismissed as the lower authorities had not made additions based on seized/incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2004-05, the addition was made without proper incriminating material, hence the Revenue's appeal failed and the assessee's cross-objection succeeded. For AY 2005-06 and AY 2008-09, the appeals were similarly dismissed as the lower authorities had not made additions based on seized/incriminating material.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty under section 271C was levied while the quantum appeals were still pending. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication along with the quantum appeals.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order passed under Section 263 for AY 2009-10 was bad in law and deserved to be quashed, reversing the CIT's decision. For the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding Section 2(15) had been settled by the Supreme Court in favor of statutory corporations.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order passed under Section 263 for AY 2009-10 was bad in law and deserved to be quashed, reversing the CIT's decision. For the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding Section 2(15) had been settled by the Supreme Court in favor of statutory corporations.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order passed under Section 263 for AY 2009-10 was bad in law and deserved to be quashed, reversing the CIT's decision. For the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding Section 2(15) had been settled by the Supreme Court in favor of statutory corporations.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim by deleting the addition, especially when the seized documents were found at the assessee's premises and the assessee failed to rebut the presumption under section 292C. The principle that seized documents do not belong to the assessee applies to assessments under section 153C, not 153A.
The assessee's counsel, at the outset, challenged the section 263 revision order but later submitted not to press the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked proper determination and detailed discussion as required by section 250(6). Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the tax effect of the Revenue's appeal was below the threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The Departmental Representative did not dispute the applicability of this circular to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's order passed under Section 263 for AY 2009-10 was bad in law and deserved to be quashed, reversing the CIT's decision. For the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding Section 2(15) had been settled by the Supreme Court in favor of statutory corporations.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's relevant assessment jurisdiction is at Noida. Citing a Standing Order, it was established that Noida falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi benches of the Tribunal. Therefore, the Agra bench lacked territorial jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted that the departmental authorities conducted a search and made identical assessments without any additions based on seized material. This was contrary to the condition precedent for "un-abated" cases as per the ruling in Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the prescribed threshold in the latest CBDT circular. The Departmental Representative did not dispute the applicability of this circular.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of higher depreciation by the Assessing Officer under section 154 was not a rectifiable issue as it involved subjective appreciation of facts. The case of T. S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros was cited.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was barred by statutory limitation as prescribed under section 263(2) of the Act. The revision order was issued after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the assessment order was passed.
The learned CIT/DR did not contest the assessee's appeal and had no objection to the assessee's prayer to withdraw it. The Tribunal considered the submission and the absence of contest from the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on proportionate administrative expenditure and mere assumptions rather than actual material against the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that if the reopening of assessment under section 147 is not sustainable, then the penalty cannot be imposed.
The Tribunal noted that the section 263 proceedings were initiated and completed during the period of the Covid-19 pandemic, which was ordered to be excluded for limitation purposes by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the PCIT for adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue did not dispute these averments.
The tribunal held that assessments framed in the name of a deceased assessee, even after due notification, are not sustainable in law. Such assessments are therefore quashed.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2004-05, the addition was made without proper incriminating material, hence the Revenue's appeal failed and the assessee's cross-objection succeeded. For AY 2005-06 and AY 2008-09, the appeals were similarly dismissed as the lower authorities had not made additions based on seized/incriminating material.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer was illegal and incorrect, constituting a de-facto review, which is not permissible under Section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the settlement in T. S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC).
The Tribunal held that the assessment was framed under section 147 of the Act instead of the applicable provision for requisition, which is section 153A of the Act. Since the assessment was framed under a wrong provision, it was considered non-est.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim by deleting the addition, especially when the seized documents were found at the assessee's premises and the assessee failed to rebut the presumption under section 292C. The principle that seized documents do not belong to the assessee applies to assessments under section 153C, not 153A.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and proceeded ex parte. It was observed that no reference was made to the DVO under section 50C(2), which is mandatory as per a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the PCIT invoked revisionary jurisdiction during the Covid-19 pandemic and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the PCIT for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press legal grounds. Regarding the addition of Rs.3,50,93,000/- for unexplained investment in immovable property, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of actual purchase price being Rs.30,42,517/- as per the sale deed. The addition was considered an extrapolation.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 65,74,539/- for silver jewellery/utensils should be considered for consequential closing stock computation, partly allowing the ground. The second ground concerning an unrecorded purchase bill was not pressed by the assessee. For the third issue regarding stock valuation, the Tribunal found shortcomings and restricted the impugned addition to Rs. 5,00,000/-, granting the assessee relief of Rs. 20,72,908/-.
The factual findings of the CIT(A) were unrebutted. The Tribunal held that the genuineness of borrowings could not be doubted as they were taken over by another entity as per NCLT order. The adhoc disallowance by the AO was also without basis, and no excessive expenditure was claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps during virtual hearings and, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matters to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was to be done within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant's risk.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had affirmed the assessment findings without proper determination points or detailed discussion as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the penalty under section 271C was levied while the quantum appeals were still pending. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication along with the quantum appeals.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The learned counsel for the assessee, after arguing the case for some time, wished to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not contest this request.
The Tribunal held that the revenue's arguments supporting the revision directions were unsustainable. The Pr.CIT's action was based on a self-signed list of payees and a search statement, lacking corroborative material to substantiate alleged capitation fee and cash payments. The Tribunal noted that section 292C(1) of the Act does not apply in this case.
The Learned Authorized Representative (AR) sought to withdraw the appeal. This was because the original assessed income was retained by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the consequential order. The revenue did not object to this withdrawal.
The tribunal held that assessments framed in the name of a deceased assessee, even after due notification, are not sustainable in law. Such assessments are therefore quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the introduction of virtual hearings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities of hearing.