Loading ITAT cases…
297 orders · Page 5 of 6
The Tribunal observed that subsequent to the CIT(A)'s order, the assessee was granted approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18 by the CIT(E) on 13-02-2024. As the CIT(A) did not consider this new development, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the exemption claim in light of the granted approval.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Jurisdictional AO. It directed the AO to provide the assessee an opportunity to furnish complete details of expenses made to non-GST registered parties and verify the provision for expenses against actual invoices received in the subsequent financial year. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted fresh evidence without obtaining a remand report from the AO, contravening Rule 46A(3).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of common expenses made by the AO was correct. However, regarding interest expenses, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the utilization of borrowed funds.
The ITAT observed that the assessee had surrendered her late husband's PAN and was recorded as his legal heir on the Income Tax portal. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the TDS credit for the deceased husband's income to the assessee and issue a refund with interest within two months, stating that the issue of filing a return as a legal heir was irrelevant given the PAN surrender.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the penalty appeal. It set aside the quantum appeal (ITA No. 2686/Ahd/2025) to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh hearing on merits with a new opportunity for the assessee. Consequently, the penalty appeal (ITA No. 1945/Ahd/2024) was allowed, with the option for the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal observed that only one opportunity was given by the CIT(E) before rejection, and considering the assessee's readiness to provide documents, it set aside the rejection order. The CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee one final opportunity to present all necessary documents for registration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the penalty appeal. It set aside the quantum appeal (ITA No. 2686/Ahd/2025) to the Assessing Officer, directing a fresh hearing on merits with a new opportunity for the assessee. Consequently, the penalty appeal (ITA No. 1945/Ahd/2024) was allowed, with the option for the AO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings.
The Ld. CIT-DR could not dispute the assessee's tax calculation but requested liberty to revive the appeal if any exclusion clause in CBDT Circulars No. 5/2024 or 9/2024 applied. The Tribunal, acknowledging this, dismissed the appeal due to low tax effect, granting the department the requested liberty to revive it under specified exceptions.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, reasoning that no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year, and the Explanation to Section 14A (w.e.f. 01.04.2022) is prospective. Regarding CSR expenses, the Tribunal affirmed that deductions under Section 80G are permissible for contributions to eligible trusts, even if such expenses are disallowed under Section 37, provided they are not made to specific restricted funds like Swachh Bharat Kosh or Clean Ganga Fund. The Tribunal relied on several precedents supporting both positions.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer's determination of FMV was invalid as it was based on a valuation report from a DVO in an unrelated case and without a specific reference to the DVO for the assessee's property. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the principle of Natural Justice and the circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, found that the assessee deserved a final opportunity to present its case. Consequently, both appeals were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to decide on merits after providing the assessee with due hearing and opportunity to furnish relevant materials.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the receipts were from medical services (like deliveries and sonography) and allowed for proportionate expenses such as medicines, anesthetics, and nursing charges. It reduced the addition to 50% of the unexplained receipts, confirming Rs.4,07,565/-.
The Tribunal found that the assessee proved the genuineness of the cash deposits of Rs.14,62,000/- by submitting necessary details, including an affidavit, bank pass-book, and cash book. Consequently, the Tribunal did not uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct an independent examination after the matter was set aside. It further ruled that delays in approval do not affect eligibility for deduction under Section 35(2AB) and that the continuation of manufacturing does not negate R&D activities. The Tribunal also found no evidence of double deduction or failure to establish the nexus for R&D expenses.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for both assessment years. It relied on its own earlier decisions and High Court judgments, finding that sufficient reserves were available and no direct nexus was proven between borrowed funds and interest-free loans. For unverified expenses and repairs & maintenance, the Tribunal reiterated its prior rulings in the assessee's own case, confirming that the AO's observations were without material evidence.
The Tribunal, relying on a previous Coordinate Bench order, held that an employer's contribution to an LIC annuity policy is not taxable as a perquisite under Section 17(2)(v) if the employee does not acquire a vested right in the amount in the assessment year. Since the assessee had no such vested right in AY 2018-19 and had already offered the annuity income on an accrual/receipt basis, taxing the contribution would amount to impermissible double taxation. The employer's payment was not considered income due, paid, or allowed to the employee.
The tribunal noted that the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid on jurisdictional grounds. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer himself had restricted the addition to the gross profit element embedded in the purchases, applying a GP rate of 13.85%. The Tribunal found that the actual value of purchases debited to the purchase account was Rs. 3,47,25,650/-, with the balance amount of Rs. 62,50,617/- representing IGST, which was accounted for separately and not claimed as expenditure. Applying the 13.85% GP rate to the actual purchase value of Rs. 3,47,25,650/- resulted in an alleged escaped income of Rs. 48,09,503/-. This amount was found to be below the monetary threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Act for initiating reassessment proceedings where the income escaped assessment is more than Rs. 50 lakhs. The Tribunal clarified that the expression 'income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment' refers to the real income sought to be brought to tax, not the gross value of transactions. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 was held to be invalid, and the consequential reassessment proceedings were quashed. On merits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided primary evidence like purchase orders, invoices, e-way bills, and RTGS payments, and the AO had not conducted independent enquiries to disprove the genuineness of these transactions. Furthermore, the assessee's books of account were not rejected under section 145(3). The Tribunal concluded that adding the gross profit, which was already reflected in the returned income, would lead to double taxation, which is impermissible. Consequently, the reassessment order and the addition were not sustained.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs.45,148/- for donations under Chapter VIA, being satisfied with the donation receipts on record. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant credit of Rs.99,187/- for foreign taxes paid, holding that the belated filing of Form 67 was merely a procedural lapse, especially since the income was already taxed.
The Tribunal condoned a 13-day delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the quantum reassessment order (ITA No.2138/Ahd/2025) to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to present evidence. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) (ITA No.2340/Ahd/2025) was cancelled, with liberty to the JAO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if necessary.
The Tribunal granted the assessee an opportunity to make due compliance before the Assessing Officer, provided a payment of Rs.10,000/- is made to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. Upon production of the payment receipt, the Assessing Officer is directed to undertake the assessment proceedings de-novo.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the principle of Natural Justice and the circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, found that the assessee deserved a final opportunity to present its case. Consequently, both appeals were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to decide on merits after providing the assessee with due hearing and opportunity to furnish relevant materials.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order, holding that in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be granted one final opportunity to appear before the CIT(E) and present all necessary documents for obtaining registration under section 12AB.
The Tribunal condoned a 13-day delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the quantum reassessment order (ITA No.2138/Ahd/2025) to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to present evidence. Consequently, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) (ITA No.2340/Ahd/2025) was cancelled, with liberty to the JAO to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if necessary.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for both assessment years. It relied on its own earlier decisions and High Court judgments, finding that sufficient reserves were available and no direct nexus was proven between borrowed funds and interest-free loans. For unverified expenses and repairs & maintenance, the Tribunal reiterated its prior rulings in the assessee's own case, confirming that the AO's observations were without material evidence.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's claim of unavoidable circumstances for non-response and genuine charitable activities, set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The case was remanded for fresh examination by the CIT(E) on issues concerning the commencement of activities and the applicability of time limits under section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act, ensuring a proper hearing for the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as he did not conduct necessary inquiries to ascertain if the AO's assessment order was indeed erroneous. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence during reassessment proceedings, which the PCIT failed to adequately examine.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances explained by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits, with a direction for the assessee to present its case properly.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 for AY 2015-16 was invalid due to being barred by limitation. Following the Apex Court's concession in the Rajeev Bansal case, the reassessment was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices from CIT(A) leading to unrepresentation. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the matter to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund as costs.
The ITAT condoned the 47-day delay in filing one of the appeals. It found that while no documents were furnished to the AO, all necessary records, including registration under sections 12A/12AA and 80G certificates, were provided to the CIT(A). The ITAT set aside the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing examination of additional evidence and verification of income application. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled, though the AO retained the liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) ignored the submissions and evidence filed by the assessee, leading to a false finding of fact. The Tribunal held that the orders were unsustainable due to gross negligence and violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the cases were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was conditional upon each assessee paying Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the cases were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was conditional upon each assessee paying Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the cases were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was conditional upon each assessee paying Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The ITAT condoned the 47-day delay in filing one of the appeals. It found that while no documents were furnished to the AO, all necessary records, including registration under sections 12A/12AA and 80G certificates, were provided to the CIT(A). The ITAT set aside the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing examination of additional evidence and verification of income application. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled, though the AO retained the liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), set aside the impugned orders, and restored the cases to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was invalid as it was based on mere suspicion and vague information without proper correlation with the assessee's records. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was invalid as it was based on mere suspicion and vague information without proper correlation with the assessee's records. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), set aside the impugned orders, and restored the cases to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was conditional on the assessee depositing Rs.10,000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and thereafter being given a full opportunity to present its case and evidence. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the lack of intentional non-compliance by the assessee. It set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its case. The assessee was also directed to be diligent with future communications.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the assessee's application for renewal of registration on merits after providing a proper opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation regarding their charitable activities and the inadvertent non-compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E), directing them to reconsider the application for renewal of registration on its merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present its case.
The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions as the AO failed to establish the identity of "Satubhai Kabra" with the assessee or to correlate the transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision. The assessee's cross-objection regarding the validity of the assessment reopening was dismissed as the AO had a bonafide belief based on the ledger entries that income had escaped assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the department's failure to prove service of notice/order. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case. This restoration is conditional on the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was hit by the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act. The AO failed to apply his mind to the information in the context of the facts on record and made bald assertions without specific material facts remaining undisclosed.
The Tribunal held that the deposit of salary earned outside India into an NRE account in India does not constitute 'receipt' of income in India as per Section 5(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the salary income is not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was invalid as it was based on mere suspicion and vague information without proper correlation with the assessee's records. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.