Loading ITAT cases…
275 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte because, despite the assessee opting out of email communication in Form 35, all notices were sent only via email without physical delivery. Considering this, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing by issuing notices in both physical and digital modes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present all details and documents.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum assessment order, which formed the basis of the penalty, was set aside and remanded to the AO for de novo assessment by a Co-ordinate Bench. As penalty proceedings are intrinsically linked to the quantum assessment, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order and remanded it to the AO for fresh adjudication in alignment with the final outcome of the quantum proceedings.
The Tribunal directed the Competent Authority to consider and decide the assessee's Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme applications within six weeks. The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty granted to the assessee to restore them by filing a fresh application if the VSVS applications are rejected by the Competent Authority.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) did not adequately consider the assessee's explanation that the income-generating activities were part of vocational training for self-employment. It was noted that several of the trust's institutions were approved and the activities appeared to be part of an educational program. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter and remanded it back to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee another opportunity to submit relevant documents and explain its activities.
The Tribunal found that the interest disallowance for AY 2007-08 was subsequently allowed by a Tribunal order and rectification under Section 154. The assessee's claim for deduction in AY 2012-13, made under a bona fide belief, cannot be considered furnishing inaccurate particulars, especially since the underlying issue of disallowance was resolved. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
The tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill arising from an amalgamation is allowable if the consideration paid exceeds the net assets acquired, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. However, a separate ground regarding late payment of employee contributions to PF/ESI was allowed against the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reopening of assessment for AY 2013-14 was not in accordance with the law due to lack of proper approval and tangible material. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found no cogent evidence to treat the short-term capital loss as bogus, as transactions were through recognized exchanges and supported by documentation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by mechanically isolating a single clause without considering the trust's dominant charitable purpose, actual activities (education, women empowerment, etc.), and financial disclosures. It found the trust deed, read holistically, showed a charitable nature and that the assessee's submission of undertaking regarding religious expenditure (below 5%) and clean Form 10BB were ignored. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication based on the trust's overall purpose and functioning.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries and accepted the assessee's claims based on the evidence provided. The PCIT's revisionary order was found to be without demonstrable basis, as the facts were similar to a previous year's case where the claim was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(3)(c) by Finance Act 2022 cannot be applied retrospectively, as doing so would create an impossible situation for the assessee to utilize funds accumulated in previous years within the originally provided time. Applying the doctrine of *lex non cogit ad impossibilia*, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had utilized the funds within the period available under the unamended law, and therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC was incorrect.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on certain grounds related to disallowance under Section 14A and deduction for ESOPs, while dismissing the Revenue's appeal on these points. The matter concerning notional interest income was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on certain grounds related to disallowance under Section 14A and deduction for ESOPs, while dismissing the Revenue's appeal on these points. The matter concerning notional interest income was remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the 165-day delay in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for de-novo (fresh) consideration, instructing that due opportunity of hearing be provided. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for each appeal to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that real estate developers should follow Accounting Standard-9, not AS-7 or Section 43CB, for revenue recognition. Revenue is taxable only upon transfer of title and possession, and the assessee's consistent method was accepted in prior and subsequent years.
The Tribunal found that the lender for the unsecured loan had provided all necessary details, including bank statements, ledger accounts, and ITR, which were overlooked by the lower authorities. For the sundry creditors, the Tribunal held that the addition represented an opening balance from prior assessment years, and therefore could not be taxed in the current year as per Section 68 and judicial precedents. Both additions were deleted.
The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application. The tribunal observed that rejection based solely on a prior rejection, without a merits-based assessment or providing an opportunity of being heard, was not appropriate and prejudiced the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal form provided details regarding the sale consideration receipts that required verification. It condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and verification of facts on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not claimed any deduction for the disputed amount of Rs. 7,13,187/-. Since no deduction was claimed by the assessee, the CPC lacked the authority to disallow the said amount. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the 165-day delay in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for de-novo (fresh) consideration, instructing that due opportunity of hearing be provided. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for each appeal to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It held that the proposition of law is settled that an addition under Section 68 for unexplained credits can be made even after the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profits, as income from undisclosed sources is distinct from estimated income from disclosed sources and does not lead to double taxation.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's election to participate in the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme. The tribunal, however, granted the assessee the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if they fail to avail the benefits of the VSV Scheme for any reason.
The Tribunal deleted the addition related to the Hathijan land purchase, following a previous order for a co-owner. For the Ropda land, the Tribunal confirmed part of the addition related to agricultural income but treated the remaining amount as the assessee's past savings.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to lack of tangible material and independent application of mind by the AO. It also noted that the assessee had provided evidence for the source of funds for property purchase and had paid taxes with interest on the capital gains.