Loading ITAT cases…
192 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that given the smallness of the amount and the explanation of the assessee regarding foreign trips and gifts from children residing overseas, the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. Recognizing the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not validly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessments. The belief of income escapement was found to be a borrowed belief from the ACB without independent application of mind by the AO.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not validly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessments. The belief of income escapement was found to be a borrowed belief from the ACB without independent application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the issue of whether disclosed income is business income or unexplained money is debatable and cannot be rectified under Section 154. The AO's action amounted to a review, which is impermissible under Section 154.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable and bona fide cause for not filing the return of income, as the loan transaction was purely foreign and already substantively taxed in the hands of her brother. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271F was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the orders of the CIT(A) were passed ex-parte without affording a proper opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and restored the matters to the AO/CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was at fault for not participating in hearings, the CIT(A) had not correctly appreciated the facts and had confirmed additions without confronting adverse materials. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not validly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessments. The belief of income escapement was found to be a borrowed belief from the ACB without independent application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the order was passed ex parte without adequate opportunity and that the assessee's explanation for non-compliance was supported by an affidavit. Considering it was a first application under a new regime for a small trust, restoring the matter for fresh consideration would serve the ends of justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation of a technical lapse in email communication to be a sufficient and reasonable cause, citing the principle of preferring substantial justice over technical considerations as laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessments were completed ex parte without effective opportunity for the assessee, despite the Assessing Officer having issued statutory notices. The assessee's AR submitted that relevant documents were traced and undertook to furnish them before the Assessing Officer in case of remand proceedings. Considering the interest of justice and fair play, and the fact that the assessee promised full cooperation, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after considering the evidence to be furnished by the assessee and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee failed to cooperate, the appeal might be decided based on the available material. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to provide an opportunity of hearing and did not decide the application on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the impairment loss and abnormal loss claimed by the assessee were genuine business losses and allowable as deductions. The penalty under Section 270A was cancelled as there was no misreporting of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the mistake in selecting the sub-clause was a bona fide technical error. It was decided that such procedural errors should not defeat the substantive rights of genuine charitable trusts, especially when their activities are undisputed.
The Tribunal held that the impairment loss and abnormal loss claimed by the assessee were genuine business losses and allowable as deductions. The penalty under Section 270A was cancelled as there was no misreporting of income.
The Tribunal found that the addition on account of suppression of closing stock was based on presumptions and incorrect assumptions regarding input-output ratio. The addition was deleted as it was revenue neutral and lacked rational basis. Other grounds were also considered.
On the issue of travelling expenses, the Tribunal found that while the expenses were supported by bills and vouchers, the onus was on the assessee to prove they were wholly and exclusively for the assessee company's business, given the Director's involvement in other ventures. However, the AO's disallowance of the entire amount was not justified. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to 50%, amounting to Rs. 51,339/-. The assessee's ground was partly allowed. Regarding power and fuel expenses, following its own decision in the assessee's case for AY 2016-17, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the total expenditure. The assessee's ground was partly allowed. For the Revenue's appeal concerning the deletion of additions on account of fixed assets and protective additions for unexplained income, the Tribunal noted that the AO himself had made these additions on a protective basis, without establishing that the documents or entries pertained to the assessee. The CIT(A) had deleted these protective additions after observing that no substantive addition had been made. The Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal frivolous and without application of mind, as the Revenue failed to demonstrate any merit or substantive basis for the additions in the assessee's hands, especially when no substantive addition was made in the hands of the person from whom documents were seized. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee sold the entire house property, not just the basement, and the deduction under Section 54 was correctly allowed by the AO. The PCIT's order revising the assessment was considered erroneous.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the AO. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order lacked factual verification and did not consider subsequent developments like the amendment of the trust deed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, requiring verification of the amended trust deed, activities, and expenditure.
The Tribunal condoned the 32-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the cause to be bona fide and supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not examine the objects of the trust or the genuineness of activities on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider the details submitted by the assessee and did not provide an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prosecute the appeals and did not provide necessary documents or explanations for non-appearance. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the mistake in selecting the sub-clause was a bona fide technical error. It was decided that such procedural errors should not defeat the substantive rights of genuine charitable trusts, especially when their activities are undisputed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation of a technical lapse in email communication to be a sufficient and reasonable cause, citing the principle of preferring substantial justice over technical considerations as laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessments were completed ex parte without effective opportunity for the assessee, despite the Assessing Officer having issued statutory notices. The assessee's AR submitted that relevant documents were traced and undertook to furnish them before the Assessing Officer in case of remand proceedings. Considering the interest of justice and fair play, and the fact that the assessee promised full cooperation, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after considering the evidence to be furnished by the assessee and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee failed to cooperate, the appeal might be decided based on the available material. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering the submitted documents. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but found merit in the explanation of communication failure and consultant negligence. It held that technical or procedural lapses should not defeat substantive charitable entitlement. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the assessee for its non-responsiveness.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases might not be genuine from Siddh Syndicate, disallowing the entire amount was not justified. The addition was restricted to the profit element, calculated as 5% higher than the assessee's disclosed Gross Profit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to provide an opportunity of hearing and did not decide the application on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, ruling that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when no exempt income is earned, citing relevant High Court judgments which hold the 2022 amendment to Section 14A as prospective. It further held that CSR expenses, when donated to eligible trusts, are eligible for deduction under Section 80G, as Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) does not bar such deductions under other provisions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not consider the details submitted by the assessee and did not provide an opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prosecute the appeals and did not provide necessary documents or explanations for non-appearance. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the petrol pumps were allowed to accept demonetization currency during the specified period, and the increased cash sales were a normal consequence of this policy. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support the cash sales.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to respond to the show cause notice without a genuine reason. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction for the appellant to pay costs and for the matter to be remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's individual bank account was used for partnership firm transactions. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not correct as the transactions pertained to the firm.
On the issue of travelling expenses, the Tribunal found that while the expenses were supported by bills and vouchers, the onus was on the assessee to prove they were wholly and exclusively for the assessee company's business, given the Director's involvement in other ventures. However, the AO's disallowance of the entire amount was not justified. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to 50%, amounting to Rs. 51,339/-. The assessee's ground was partly allowed. Regarding power and fuel expenses, following its own decision in the assessee's case for AY 2016-17, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the total expenditure. The assessee's ground was partly allowed. For the Revenue's appeal concerning the deletion of additions on account of fixed assets and protective additions for unexplained income, the Tribunal noted that the AO himself had made these additions on a protective basis, without establishing that the documents or entries pertained to the assessee. The CIT(A) had deleted these protective additions after observing that no substantive addition had been made. The Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal frivolous and without application of mind, as the Revenue failed to demonstrate any merit or substantive basis for the additions in the assessee's hands, especially when no substantive addition was made in the hands of the person from whom documents were seized. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that certain companies considered comparable by the TPO were functionally dissimilar and directed their exclusion. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted, and the appeal was allowed in part.
The Tribunal held that the reopening u/s 147 was rightly done. However, regarding the addition u/s 50C, it was noted that the assessee paid stamp duty on the agreed value and not the jantry value, and the DVO's report supported the sale consideration. Therefore, the deletion of addition by CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The impugned order was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the core issue of exemption denial due to registration mismatch. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, instructing them to consider the rectification application and examine the exemption claim under Section 10(23C)(via) properly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that reassessment proceedings under section 147 were validly initiated as no seized material belonging to the assessee was found, and section 153C was not attracted. The CIT(A)'s direction to set aside the assessment for fresh adjudication was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention regarding the mandatory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) when the assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation has merit. The Tribunal noted that once an assessee disputes the correctness of the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and claims it exceeds the fair market value, it becomes mandatory for the AO to refer the matter to the DVO to ascertain the fair market value before making any addition. The Tribunal cited several judicial pronouncements supporting this view, including decisions from the Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad, Delhi, and Agra Benches of the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the AO erred in adopting the stamp duty valuation without referring the matter to the DVO, despite the assessee's objection to the jantri value being excessive. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The matter was restored to the AO with a direction to refer the valuation of the property to the DVO, obtain the report, and then decide the issue of short-term capital gains afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The issue regarding Rs. 1,75,000/- as commission income was not explicitly decided but was implicitly part of the overall remand.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that reassessment proceedings under section 147 were validly initiated as no seized material belonging to the assessee was found, and section 153C was not attracted. The CIT(A)'s direction to set aside the assessment for fresh adjudication was affirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that reassessment proceedings under section 147 were validly initiated as no seized material belonging to the assessee was found, and section 153C was not attracted. The CIT(A)'s direction to set aside the assessment for fresh adjudication was affirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(E), and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and routed the transaction through banking channels, satisfactorily explaining its genuineness. In the absence of contrary evidence from the Revenue, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application and cancellation of provisional approval were not justified as the errors were technical and procedural, not on merits. The principle of substance over form was applied, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that procedural lapses alone should not lead to denial of substantial justice. The CIT(E) was required to ascertain the genuineness of activities and charitable nature of objects before denial of registration. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for de-novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly observed that the assessment order was passed without adequate opportunity for the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s action of setting aside the assessment and remitting it back to the AO for fresh adjudication was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that reassessment proceedings under section 147 were validly initiated as no seized material belonging to the assessee was found, and section 153C was not attracted. The CIT(A)'s direction to set aside the assessment for fresh adjudication was affirmed.