Loading ITAT cases…
192 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal has not recorded its decision on the issue presented. The provided text is an excerpt from the judgment and does not contain the findings, reasoning, or operative directions of the ITAT. Therefore, what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning that led to it, the ratio, and any operative directions are not available in this portion of the judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided as the decision itself is not present.
The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the computation of cost of acquisition, which was linked to the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981, needed to be restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de-novo consideration. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim for cost of improvement and expenditure on transfer was also not adequately substantiated. Therefore, the AO was directed to conduct a proper inquiry into these claims, including verification of parties mentioned in the bills, by issuing notices or summons and allowing the assessee an effective opportunity to present supporting documents. The AO was to decide the issue afresh after examining all materials. Regarding the STCG on the second property, the Tribunal observed that the issue of computation of sale consideration under Section 50C was also linked to the cost of acquisition which was being restored. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo consideration. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
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 issue concerning the computation of STCG for the transaction of NA land at Chhatral, which was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in ITA No. 124/Ahd/2023 (regarding cost of acquisition), should also be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in ITA No. 125/Ahd/2023. This is because the present appeal in ITA No. 125/Ahd/2023 also pertains to the same transaction, with the dispute revolving around the correct sale consideration (against which the computation of cost of acquisition was restored). Therefore, the Tribunal directed that the matter be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not argued any other grounds of appeal in ITA No. 124/Ahd/2023 beyond those discussed, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The specific reasoning for the other grounds (like the mandatory reference to DVO, substantiation of costs, and validity of assessment notice) is not detailed in the provided excerpt of the judgment, as the matter was ultimately remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee remained non-compliant despite multiple opportunities. Since the primary adjudication had not been done, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and directed the assessee to furnish all relevant documents and comply with notices.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer violated principles of natural justice by providing insufficient notice for hearing during assessment proceedings for AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18. For AY 2018-19, the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal on a technical name mismatch without granting an opportunity to rectify. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary documents and cooperate with the authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee for compliance, subject to payment of costs, and to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer violated principles of natural justice by providing insufficient notice for hearing during assessment proceedings for AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18. For AY 2018-19, the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal on a technical name mismatch without granting an opportunity to rectify. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer violated principles of natural justice by providing insufficient notice for hearing during assessment proceedings for AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18. For AY 2018-19, the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal on a technical name mismatch without granting an opportunity to rectify. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to furnish all necessary details and documents.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary documentary evidence to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce substantial documents and had not complied with notices. However, to serve the interests of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh consideration of the application.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documentary evidence, and the AO was instructed to verify it. The Tribunal emphasized the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by relying on the co-owner's case without verifying factual parity and examining the evidence. The burden to prove agricultural use rests on the assessee, which was not adequately discharged.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer violated principles of natural justice by providing insufficient notice for hearing during assessment proceedings for AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18. For AY 2018-19, the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal on a technical name mismatch without granting an opportunity to rectify. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account by the AO was not justified as no specific defects were pointed out. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made by the AO, as suspicion alone cannot replace evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documents and evidence without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of residing in an interior village without internet access as a reason for non-compliance. In the interest of justice, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, providing the assessee a fresh opportunity to submit all required documents and be heard.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to submit all necessary documents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee repeatedly failed to submit necessary documents to substantiate the source of cash deposits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the AO and CIT(A). However, to provide an opportunity, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment (de novo).
The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, citing ongoing corporate disputes and fraudulent siphoning of income substantiated by documentary evidence. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill by the AO and CIT(A) was incorrect. The depreciation is allowable based on judicial precedents, including Supreme Court judgments, and the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and do not affect the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as non-maintainable solely on the ground of the assessee's failure to file the Statement of Facts along with Form No. 35. The Tribunal observed that the absence of a Statement of Facts is a procedural irregularity and does not go to the root of the appeal's maintainability, especially when the grounds of appeal are on record. The statutory mandate under section 250(6) requires the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing, stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Dismissing an appeal without adjudication on merits is contrary to this mandate. The Tribunal noted that both the AR and DR agreed that restoring the matters to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits was the appropriate course. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and both appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate them afresh on merits after granting due opportunity. The Tribunal clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 149 of the Act, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly examined the assessee's return, which showed a Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) and not the alleged LTCG. The reassessment notice was deemed to suffer from latches and lack of due diligence, making the assessment void ab initio. For AY 2017-18, the penalty proceedings were sent back to the CIT(A) for consideration along with quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals as non-maintainable solely on the ground of the assessee's failure to file the Statement of Facts along with Form No. 35. The Tribunal observed that the absence of a Statement of Facts is a procedural irregularity and does not go to the root of the appeal's maintainability, especially when the grounds of appeal are on record. The statutory mandate under section 250(6) requires the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing, stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Dismissing an appeal without adjudication on merits is contrary to this mandate. The Tribunal noted that both the AR and DR agreed that restoring the matters to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits was the appropriate course. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and both appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate them afresh on merits after granting due opportunity. The Tribunal clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the additions made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was granted registration u/s. 12AA as per the Tribunal's own order for AY 2019-20, the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to grant exemption u/s. 11(1)(c). The appeal by the Revenue regarding exemption was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 271G penalty is for failure to furnish information or documents, not for the acceptability of the benchmarking done. Since the TPO did not specify which documents were missing and instead penalized for incorrect benchmarking, the penalty was wrongly imposed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation with supporting evidence. The PCIT's finding that the AO's order was erroneous was not sustainable as no contrary evidence was presented.
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 149 of the Act, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly examined the assessee's return, which showed a Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) and not the alleged LTCG. The reassessment notice was deemed to suffer from latches and lack of due diligence, making the assessment void ab initio. For AY 2017-18, the penalty proceedings were sent back to the CIT(A) for consideration along with quantum appeal.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was granted registration u/s. 12AA as per the Tribunal's own order for AY 2019-20, the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to grant exemption u/s. 11(1)(c). The appeal by the Revenue regarding exemption was dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The transactions were routed through banking channels and satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee is directed to provide all relevant documentary evidence and cooperate fully with the Revenue authorities to verify the genuineness of the share transaction.
The Tribunal found that no addition was warranted for purchases as they were reconciled. It ruled against adhoc disallowances on salary, as it was already paid, and on car expenses, as vehicles were used for business purposes and directors had personal cars, with no contrary evidence presented by the revenue.
The Tribunal found no 'live link' or independent satisfaction by the AO, nor evidence connecting the assessee to price rigging or accommodation entries. It determined that the share transactions were genuine, supported by documentary evidence, and the additions were based on suspicion rather than concrete material. Consequently, both the additions for LTCG and commission were deleted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to furnish details despite opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, granting the assessee another opportunity to furnish all relevant details.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the Section 14A disallowance to Rs. 10,00,000 and to delete the disallowance of Rs. 4,12,18,805 on account of the write-off of a loan given to a subsidiary, considering it a business loss. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance in book profit computation under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the allotment letter, construction agreement, and sale deed, though submitted later, establish contractual arrangements for acquiring the flat. It clarified that investing in an under-construction project falls under 'construction' rather than 'purchase' for Section 54 purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the judicial precedents that allow for Section 54 exemption even if the property is purchased in the spouse's name, provided the funds are from the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure for distributing floor mats to pilgrims was charitable relief, intended to alleviate hardship, and not religious in character. Applying the 'dominant purpose test,' the Tribunal found that the trust's objects were purely charitable, and merely benefiting religious persons incidentally did not make the activity religious. Therefore, the CIT(E) erred in applying Section 80G(5B).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-appearance at the ITAT level, mirroring the CIT(A)'s ex-parte proceedings, and found no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the CIT(A), which was based on the assessee's failure to substantiate its claims and reliance on judicial precedents.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding the AO's information incomplete and ambiguous. The assessee provided confirmation from the State Bank of India that no such fixed deposits were made, which was supported by bank statements and ledger extracts.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee consistently treated the Rs. 15,04,362/- as genuine sales, already recorded and offered to tax in its profit and loss account. Since the Assessing Officer did not challenge the genuineness of the sales or verify debtor accounts, and there was no allegation of bogus transactions, the amount already offered to tax cannot be re-taxed under Section 68. Consequently, the addition was deleted.
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition based on the assessee's reconciliation without seeking a remand report from the AO or properly verifying crucial facts such as the status of the Banakhat agreements, the fate of advance amounts, and TDS accounting. Concluding that the true nature of the transaction could not be established without such inquiry, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after obtaining a remand report from the AO and conducting thorough verification.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, the ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside due to the assessee's explanation for non-compliance. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal reasoned that clause 21(g) of Form 3CD mandates disclosure of contingent liabilities for informational purposes, and this disclosure does not, by itself, confer the character of expenditure upon such items. The Tribunal noted that the Rs. 44,53,31,688/- were disclosed as contingent liabilities in the balance sheet schedules and were not debited to the profit and loss account, nor claimed as expenditure. The Revenue failed to provide any material to demonstrate otherwise. The Tribunal also referred to a coordinate bench decision in Mahesh Mohanbhai Patel (HUF), which held that adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) cannot go beyond apparent mistakes and do not extend to issues requiring verification, such as contingent liabilities not debited to the profit and loss account. Therefore, the addition made by CPC was without foundation and the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.
The Tribunal condoned the 174-day delay in filing the appeal, finding it bona fide and due to genuine reasons. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to present all requisite documents, including Form 10B, accounts, and supporting evidence. The CIT(A) is to decide on the exemption under Section 10(26AAB) or, alternatively, allow the expenditure against the receipts.