Loading ITAT cases…
211 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal admitted additional evidences submitted by the assessee, stating there was sufficient reason for their late submission due to circumstances beyond control and directions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The issue was remitted back to the AO for examination and decision.
The Tribunal held that the reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. was misplaced as the relevant statute (Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act) recognizes nominal members. The Tribunal further examined the disallowance of interest income from deposits, partly allowing the deduction and remitting the matter for verification.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an adequate opportunity for hearing and without deciding the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and applied his mind judiciously, considering the books of accounts and documents provided by the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the entire issue requires fresh examination by the AO as there was a lack of clarity regarding the AY and the transaction details. The Tribunal allowed the assessee another opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issue of the TP study and interest on delayed receivables back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee was directed to provide audited financial statements of the Belgian entity and demonstrate the functions, assets, and risks of both entities to allow for proper benchmarking.
The Tribunal noted that both parties conceded that the assessee could not properly represent the case before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the exemption u/s 11 and 12 could not be granted due to non-compliance with filing the audit report in the prescribed form and time, the assessment of total gross receipts as income was incorrect. The matter was remitted to the AO to examine the legitimate expenditures incurred by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including details of agricultural land, crops grown, and sales, to substantiate the source of cash deposits as agricultural income. The AO failed to provide any adverse material to reject the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard after the hearing date was preponed. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the PCIT for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to admit additional evidence, including bank statements from State Bank of India and HDFC Bank, email communications, RTGS challans, and cheque copies, as the documents were received after the lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's husband transferred Rs. 20,00,000/- on 21/07/2015 to the assessee's HDFC account, and on 22/07/2015, the assessee paid Rs. 20,02,382/- by cheque to the builder. The RTGS was initiated from the husband's State Bank of India NRE account, authorized by the mother-in-law. The Tribunal found that the RTGS amount was utilized for payment to the builder. Since these documents were not available before the AO or DRP, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for consideration of the additional evidence. If found in order, the addition of Rs. 20,02,382/- under Section 69 would be deleted. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the mere presence of a temporary mosque does not automatically classify the trust as religious, especially when its main objects are charitable. The CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on this basis.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the ex-parte orders of the AO and CIT(A), and remitted the issue to the AO for denovo consideration after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and considered the evidence submitted by the assessee, including books of accounts and bank statements, before accepting the return of income. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below accepted the cash sales as the source of deposits. It questioned how SBNs, deemed worthless, could form the basis for additions of significant value. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not disputed the cash sales declared in the audited profit and loss account.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay of 1265 days before the ITAT, along with affidavits from the assessee and their auditor. The reasons provided for the delay included the assessee's transfer, issues with the consultant, and the impact of Covid-19. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. However, the provided judgment excerpt does not contain the Tribunal's final decision on whether to condone the delay or the ultimate outcome of the appeal. The operative part of the judgment, including the finding on the issue of delay and the final relief, is not present in the excerpt.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to consider detailed written submissions and denied an effective personal hearing. Consequently, the ITAT restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and considering all submissions.
The Tribunal, considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding condonation of delay, decided to prefer substantial justice over technicality. The Tribunal found that there was no malafide intention and the reason provided for the delay was a sufficient cause. Therefore, the delay of 193 days was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO on various deposits made by the assessee for getting essential facilities could not be sustained. The Tribunal reasoned that deposits made for BWSSB/BESCOM and apartment associations are mandatory for obtaining power supply, water, and sewerage connections, without which the apartment cannot be used as a dwelling. Therefore, these expenditures are to be treated as part of the cost of the property or cost of improvement, as they are essential for making the property dwellable. The Tribunal relied on the Cuttack Tribunal's decision in Abani Pattanayak vs. ACIT, which held BWSSB deposits as part of the cost of the building, and the Delhi Tribunal's decision in (2024) 160 taxmann.com 509 (Delhi), which allowed deduction for expenses essential for making a house habitable. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee inadvertently claimed these as cost of improvement, they would form part of the cost of the property itself. The Tribunal also considered the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding a mistake in the computation of capital gains and decided to remit the appeal to the AO for verification and recalculation if found in order. Therefore, the appeal was allowed on merits regarding the disallowance of deposits, and the matter was remanded for recalculating capital gains based on the additional ground.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10-IE once and getting it accepted by the department is sufficient to avail the benefit of the new tax regime under section 115BAC, and it is not required to be filed every year. The CPC wrongly computed tax under the old regime.
The Tribunal held that the AO had accepted similar jewellery found during the search as belonging to the assessee's spouse in a separate assessment. Given the identical satisfaction notes and seized documents, it was illogical for the AO to treat the same jewellery as unexplained in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, an 83-year-old senior citizen, did not receive notices sent via email due to his lack of tech savviness. The Tribunal decided to set aside the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books were audited and no discrepancies were found by the CA or AO. However, the assessee failed to provide adequate documentary evidence to explain the cash deposits. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present necessary documents.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel & Power Ltd., and High Court decisions, held that for AY 2015-16, any Section 148 notice issued on or after April 1, 2021, is barred by limitation as the Revenue itself conceded this point. Consequently, the impugned notice and the entire assessment framed were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that as per Section 91(2) of the DTVSV Scheme, 2024, pending appeals are deemed withdrawn upon issuance of a certificate. Since the certificate was issued, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was erroneous as the Rs. 12 lakhs commission income was indeed part of the turnover and had been offered to tax. Accepting the PCIT's order would lead to double taxation. Therefore, the reassessment order passed by the AO was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It then remitted the issue of disallowance under section 40A(3) back to the Assessing Officer and directed the deletion of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), following its own previous judgments.
The Tribunal held that Rule 128(9) is directory, not mandatory, and that the assessee cannot be deprived of FTC due to a procedural lapse. The Tribunal also noted that DTAA provisions override the Act and Rules cannot be contrary to the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 97 days, noting that the quantum appeal for the same AY was previously remitted to the AO for denovo consideration after condoning a significant delay. The Tribunal, in line with the previous order, also condoned the delay in the penalty appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It then remitted the issue of disallowance under section 40A(3) back to the Assessing Officer and directed the deletion of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), following its own previous judgments.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the AO on 29/03/2023 is barred by limitation as per Section 144C(13) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Vodafone Idea Ltd. vs. CPC and the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in Rapiscan Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADIT, which emphasize that procedural defects or delays in adhering to the timelines prescribed under Section 144C can vitiate the entire proceeding and defeat the object of providing an alternate dispute resolution mechanism. The Tribunal noted that the DRP's directions were received by the AO on 27/02/2023, and the FAO was passed on 29/03/2023. The Tribunal found that the FAO was not passed within the stipulated period. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the final assessment order on this legal ground alone. The other grounds raised by the assessee on merits were not adjudicated in view of the order passed on the legal plea, and it was left open to the assessee to raise them at the appropriate time if required.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee (IT(IT)A No. 813/Bang/2025) was infructuous. This decision was based on the fact that another appeal (IT(IT)A No. 644/Bang/2025) for the same Assessment Year 2022-23 and against the identical assessment order had already been disposed of by the Tribunal on 30/06/2025. The Tribunal confirmed with the Registry that both appeals were registered. Since a parallel appeal covering the same subject matter had already been decided, the Tribunal found no necessity to adjudicate the present appeal. The ratio decidendi is that when a matter has already been decided between the same parties for the same assessment year and against the same order, a subsequent identical appeal becomes infructuous. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal held that considering the exclusion of the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, as per the Supreme Court's order, the effective delay was only 86 days. The Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of substantial justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had bifurcated the income into salary and professional receipts and applied section 44ADA to the latter. However, it was contended that treating the amount received from Father Muller as professional income and then making a further addition would amount to double addition. The Tribunal found that it needed verification at the AO's level whether the income was taxed twice.
The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, even if mandatory, can be eligible for deduction under Section 80G if made to an approved institution. The disallowance under Section 37 for CSR expenditure does not preclude a claim under Section 80G, as these are distinct stages of computation.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, restoring the issue of working capital adjustment back to the TPO for fresh adjudication. However, it dismissed grounds related to the exclusion/inclusion of comparable companies.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's bona fide belief, prompt action upon realizing the error, and the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that as per the proviso to section 56(2)(vii), if the agreement and registration dates differ and payment is made through banking channels before the agreement date, the stamp duty value as of the agreement date should be considered. Since these conditions were met, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to a genuine mistake in communication leading to the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A). The matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the non-appearance was not wilful, considering the assessee's circumstances. A further opportunity was granted to the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to file the return was a bona fide lapse due to extraordinary circumstances and financial hardship, not concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Filing the tax audit report within the due date demonstrated no intent to conceal.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and had remitted the amounts. As per the scheme's provisions, pending appeals are deemed withdrawn upon certificate issuance.
The Tribunal held that the non-appearance was not wilful, considering the assessee's circumstances. A further opportunity was granted to the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the non-appearance was not wilful, considering the assessee's circumstances. A further opportunity was granted to the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the non-appearance was not wilful, considering the assessee's circumstances. A further opportunity was granted to the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the non-appearance was not wilful, considering the assessee's circumstances. A further opportunity was granted to the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the non-appearance was not wilful, considering the assessee's circumstances. A further opportunity was granted to the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the non-appearance was not wilful, considering the assessee's circumstances. A further opportunity was granted to the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the non-appearance was not wilful, considering the assessee's circumstances. A further opportunity was granted to the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) for denovo consideration.
The Tribunal held that the non-appearance was not wilful, considering the assessee's circumstances. A further opportunity was granted to the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer (AO) for denovo consideration.