ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, as TDS credit appearing in Form 26AS should be allowed when the corresponding revenue is offered to tax. The Revenue conceded the issue.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. This was done to consider new evidence filed by the assessee and to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. The tribunal noted that the incorrect email address led to non-receipt of notices, and directed the CIT(A) to provide a hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. This was due to the assessee's consistent failure to appear before the Tribunal and prosecute the appeal, despite multiple opportunities and proper service of notices.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the case on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that debatable issues cannot be decided in rectification proceedings. Since the CPC had initially allowed the exemption and then denied it without proper reasoning in the rectification order, the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) may not have considered the assessee's evidence and submissions. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after considering the evidence and following principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal confirmed the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities, citing the assessee's consistent non-cooperation and lack of evidence. The Tribunal followed a jurisdictional High Court judgment that restored ex-parte orders in similar circumstances.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, admitted additional evidence, and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, citing principles of natural justice. A cost was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) may not have considered the assessee's evidence and submissions. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after considering the evidence and following principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that surcharge is leviable only when the total income exceeds Rs. 50,00,000/-. Since the assessee's income was below this threshold, the levy of surcharge at 37% was incorrect.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, allowing 70% of foreign travel expenses after acknowledging a personal element and deleting the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) due to sufficient interest-free funds. The other grounds were not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The assessee provided a detailed categorization of the miscellaneous losses written off, including shortages, pilferage, obsolescence, sale of scrap, intangible assets, bad debts, and sale of fixed assets. The tribunal is now to adjudicate this omitted ground.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, admitted additional evidence, and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, citing principles of natural justice. A cost was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was vague as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) may not have considered the assessee's evidence and submissions. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after considering the evidence and following principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal confirmed the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities, citing the assessee's consistent non-cooperation and lack of evidence. The Tribunal followed a jurisdictional High Court judgment that restored ex-parte orders in similar circumstances.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for not filing requisite details (lack of knowledge of proceedings) to be bonafide. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication after considering the evidence and following principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the transactions were with a domestic company, not an international one, and thus Section 271AA was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted the vagueness of the AO's penalty order.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not conducted proper inquiries regarding the exemptions claimed. The annuity amount was considered remuneration and taxable as salary, making the AO's order erroneous.

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not refer the case to the District Valuation Officer (DVO), unlike in the case of a co-owner. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the DVO's report submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the ends of justice would be served by remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to produce proof of payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's revisionary power under Section 263 should be restricted to the issue of commission paid on the accommodation entry. The Assessing Officer was directed to inquire only into this specific aspect.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case effectively, considering it is an NRI and the short period for hearings was insufficient.

The Tribunal noted the submission by the CIT-DR that the assessee was no longer pursuing the appeal as registration under section 80G was subsequently granted. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer. This was to consider the additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the property's distance from municipalities, which is crucial for determining its agricultural status under Section 2(14)(iii).

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did audit his accounts, the audit report was filed belatedly. However, considering the specific circumstances and the fact that the audit was completed within the stipulated time, the penalty was deemed not justifiable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submitted details and grounds of appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after verifying the evidence and providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that similar circular trading transactions were treated as incurring expenses at a certain percentage in other cases. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s finding that 0.30% of circular trading transactions should be allowed as intermediary charges.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including student-wise fee records and corroborating documents, to explain the source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was unsustainable.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, citing a lack of consideration for the assessee's explanation and the relevant press release. The case was remanded to provide the assessee with one more opportunity for a hearing and to present necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) failed to consider relevant Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 13(1)(b). Therefore, the CIT(Exemption) was directed to pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal without deciding on merits was contrary to natural justice. However, it also noted the assessee's lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal and imposed a cost.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to genuine technical difficulties faced by the assessee. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to present its case on merits.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15), additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as per the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for these years was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed. For AY 2017-18, which was an abated assessment, the Tribunal ruled that the AO is entitled to assess or re-assess total income using all available materials, and the CIT(A)'s restriction to incriminating material was incorrect. The Revenue's ground for AY 2017-18 was allowed in part. Regarding the commission income for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 0.75% on an estimated transaction of Rs. 100 Crores, considering the evidence from earlier years and the assessee's admission regarding the source of cash. The assessee was to be allowed set-off for cash deposits and PMGKY disclosures. The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2017-18 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15), additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as per the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for these years was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed. For AY 2017-18, which was an abated assessment, the Tribunal ruled that the AO is entitled to assess or re-assess total income using all available materials, and the CIT(A)'s restriction to incriminating material was incorrect. The Revenue's ground for AY 2017-18 was allowed in part. Regarding the commission income for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 0.75% on an estimated transaction of Rs. 100 Crores, considering the evidence from earlier years and the assessee's admission regarding the source of cash. The assessee was to be allowed set-off for cash deposits and PMGKY disclosures. The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2017-18 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15), additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as per the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for these years was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed. For AY 2017-18, which was an abated assessment, the Tribunal ruled that the AO is entitled to assess or re-assess total income using all available materials, and the CIT(A)'s restriction to incriminating material was incorrect. The Revenue's ground for AY 2017-18 was allowed in part. Regarding the commission income for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 0.75% on an estimated transaction of Rs. 100 Crores, considering the evidence from earlier years and the assessee's admission regarding the source of cash. The assessee was to be allowed set-off for cash deposits and PMGKY disclosures. The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2017-18 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15), additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as per the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for these years was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed. For AY 2017-18, which was an abated assessment, the Tribunal ruled that the AO is entitled to assess or re-assess total income using all available materials, and the CIT(A)'s restriction to incriminating material was incorrect. The Revenue's ground for AY 2017-18 was allowed in part. Regarding the commission income for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 0.75% on an estimated transaction of Rs. 100 Crores, considering the evidence from earlier years and the assessee's admission regarding the source of cash. The assessee was to be allowed set-off for cash deposits and PMGKY disclosures. The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2017-18 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15), additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as per the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for these years was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed. For AY 2017-18, which was an abated assessment, the Tribunal ruled that the AO is entitled to assess or re-assess total income using all available materials, and the CIT(A)'s restriction to incriminating material was incorrect. The Revenue's ground for AY 2017-18 was allowed in part. Regarding the commission income for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 0.75% on an estimated transaction of Rs. 100 Crores, considering the evidence from earlier years and the assessee's admission regarding the source of cash. The assessee was to be allowed set-off for cash deposits and PMGKY disclosures. The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2017-18 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15), additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as per the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for these years was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed. For AY 2017-18, which was an abated assessment, the Tribunal ruled that the AO is entitled to assess or re-assess total income using all available materials, and the CIT(A)'s restriction to incriminating material was incorrect. The Revenue's ground for AY 2017-18 was allowed in part. Regarding the commission income for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 0.75% on an estimated transaction of Rs. 100 Crores, considering the evidence from earlier years and the assessee's admission regarding the source of cash. The assessee was to be allowed set-off for cash deposits and PMGKY disclosures. The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2017-18 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15), additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as per the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for these years was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed. For AY 2017-18, which was an abated assessment, the Tribunal ruled that the AO is entitled to assess or re-assess total income using all available materials, and the CIT(A)'s restriction to incriminating material was incorrect. The Revenue's ground for AY 2017-18 was allowed in part. Regarding the commission income for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 0.75% on an estimated transaction of Rs. 100 Crores, considering the evidence from earlier years and the assessee's admission regarding the source of cash. The assessee was to be allowed set-off for cash deposits and PMGKY disclosures. The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2017-18 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15), additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as per the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for these years was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed. For AY 2017-18, which was an abated assessment, the Tribunal ruled that the AO is entitled to assess or re-assess total income using all available materials, and the CIT(A)'s restriction to incriminating material was incorrect. The Revenue's ground for AY 2017-18 was allowed in part. Regarding the commission income for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 0.75% on an estimated transaction of Rs. 100 Crores, considering the evidence from earlier years and the assessee's admission regarding the source of cash. The assessee was to be allowed set-off for cash deposits and PMGKY disclosures. The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2017-18 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (AYs 2011-12 to 2014-15), additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as per the decision in Abhishar Buildwell (supra). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for these years was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed. For AY 2017-18, which was an abated assessment, the Tribunal ruled that the AO is entitled to assess or re-assess total income using all available materials, and the CIT(A)'s restriction to incriminating material was incorrect. The Revenue's ground for AY 2017-18 was allowed in part. Regarding the commission income for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate commission income at 0.75% on an estimated transaction of Rs. 100 Crores, considering the evidence from earlier years and the assessee's admission regarding the source of cash. The assessee was to be allowed set-off for cash deposits and PMGKY disclosures. The Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2017-18 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals where the Revenue sought withdrawal due to low tax effect. For the remaining appeals, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's judgment in the assessee's own case, which rejected the Revenue's appeals on similar grounds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to genuine technical difficulties faced by the assessee. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to present its case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and the assessment order was not erroneous. The Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside as it lacked specific findings on how the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the additions due to a lack of evidence. The matter requires examination of investments, which can be done by the AO after issuing a valid notice to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and the assessment order was not erroneous. The Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside as it lacked specific findings on how the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and the assessment order was not erroneous. The Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside as it lacked specific findings on how the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue.