Loading ITAT cases…
79 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that when incriminating material pertaining to a third person is found during a search, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C after recording satisfaction. Initiating proceedings under Section 147 in such a scenario vitiates the entire assessment.
The Tribunal held that when incriminating material pertaining to a third party is found during a search, proceedings should be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was therefore vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201 for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments during the period when binding judicial orders restrained such deduction. Consequently, the interest under Section 201(1A) was also not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO mechanically issued the notice without independent examination of material and without applying his mind to the information received. The addition was made solely on the basis of the Investigation Wing's report without establishing the receipt of funds by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the DVO under Section 142A was legally infirm and that the valuation report of the registered valuer should be relied upon. It also held that the expenses incurred for clearing the land of illegal occupants and legal fees were allowable expenditures.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed limitation period. The notice under Section 148 was issued after the expiry of the extended limitation period, rendering it invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the assessee had provided necessary documents like ledger accounts, lender's confirmation, bank statements, and ITRs. The loan was also repaid in subsequent years, and the provisions of Section 68 were amended later.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the DVO under Section 142A was legally infirm and that the valuation report of the registered valuer should be relied upon. It also held that the expenses incurred for clearing the land of illegal occupants and legal fees were allowable expenditures.
The Tribunal held that gifts from relatives, even if received shortly after the donors received loan repayments, are valid if supported by evidence and exempt under Section 56(2)(vii). It also found that advances from customers and unsecured loans were explained by the assessee with documentary evidence. The ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was also deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not cooperative during assessment and appellate proceedings, failing to provide necessary documentation. However, considering a letter regarding cash deposits and customer lists, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that procedural rules are tools for justice and can be moulded. The additional evidence was crucial to demonstrate the bona fide nature of the accounting errors and was therefore admitted.
The Tribunal, in this specific judgment, held that the assessee (SBI) could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act for the impugned period. The reasoning was that the assessee was operating under the binding interim directions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court during the relevant period, which restrained it from deducting tax at source on LFC payments. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the obligation to deduct tax under Section 192 must yield to binding judicial orders, and failure to deduct tax in such circumstances cannot be equated with a default under Section 201(1). The Tribunal also noted that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in ITA No.45 of 2025 had examined a similar issue and held in favour of the assessee, stating that provisions of Section 201(1) are not attracted when the assessee is restrained by judicial orders from deducting tax. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court and a coordinate bench decision. Consequently, the interest charged under Section 201(1A) was also held to be unsustainable. The AO was directed to delete the demand raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). However, the Accountant Member's concluding remarks indicate a divergence, stating that the issue on merits was concluded by the Supreme Court and no specific interim order for the assessee was on record, leading to a dismissal of the appeal. This indicates a split or differing opinion within the bench, with the operative part of the order reflecting the allowance of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the date of issuance of the notice is to be considered as 01.04.2021, based on the email communication. Since the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A of the Act as per the new scheme, the notice and the subsequent assessment order are void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals made by the assessee during the year, totaling Rs. 34,68,000/-, sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the entire addition of Rs. 30,01,000/- should have been deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was flawed as there was no escapement of income. The assessee had already included the amount in their sale proceeds. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing the assessee to furnish the required bills and vouchers for verification. If found genuine, the expenses will be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were flawed due to the premature issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act and the approval under Section 151 being granted before the show cause notice. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was invalid.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional evidence regarding the duplication of figures in the 'insight data' which was not presented before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering this new evidence.
The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the first appeal on merits. For the second appeal, the ITAT held that the penalty notice was bad in law due to non-striking of the irrelevant portion and directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities and restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the ex parte orders passed by the lower authorities and restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the first appeal on merits. For the second appeal, the ITAT held that the penalty notice was bad in law due to non-striking of the irrelevant portion and directed the deletion of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was unjustified as the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and the books of accounts were not rejected. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal deleted the addition for one supplier as their genuineness was established and sustained a profit element addition for the other supplier due to documentation deficiencies.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was unjustified as the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and the books of accounts were not rejected. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal deleted the addition for one supplier as their genuineness was established and sustained a profit element addition for the other supplier due to documentation deficiencies.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding unexplained advances by following a previous precedent. It also allowed the appeal concerning disallowance of interest expenses, noting the payee had declared the income. However, it dismissed the appeal regarding profit on job work, upholding the CIT(A)'s estimation.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding unexplained advances by following a previous precedent. It also allowed the appeal concerning disallowance of interest expenses, noting the payee had declared the income. However, it dismissed the appeal regarding profit on job work, upholding the CIT(A)'s estimation.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding unexplained advances by following a previous precedent. It also allowed the appeal concerning disallowance of interest expenses, noting the payee had declared the income. However, it dismissed the appeal regarding profit on job work, upholding the CIT(A)'s estimation.