ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — June 2021

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153C can only be made based on incriminating material. Since no such material was found to justify the addition for household expenses, the same was not tenable in law and directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's affidavit as additional evidence, which raised doubts about the genuineness of the receipts and the opportunity for cross-examination. Consequently, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's affidavit as additional evidence, which raised doubts about the genuineness of the receipts and the opportunity for cross-examination. Consequently, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's affidavit as additional evidence, which raised doubts about the genuineness of the receipts and the opportunity for cross-examination. Consequently, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence presented by the assessee, especially since the assessment was ex-parte. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's affidavit as additional evidence, which raised doubts about the genuineness of the receipts and the opportunity for cross-examination. Consequently, the issue was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the Pr.CIT had not properly dealt with the assessee's contentions regarding the apportionment of expenses and the eligibility of deductions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Pr.CIT.

The Tribunal found the AO's stance contradictory and the CIT(A) did not provide cogent reasons. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that it was unclear when the remand report was sent to the assessee and whether sufficient time was provided for a response. Therefore, the case was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and not sustainable in law because the mandatory notice under Section 148 was not properly served on the assessee. The Tribunal found that the notice was not served personally, by post, or by affixation in accordance with the law.

The CIT(A) upheld the addition, finding that the cash withdrawal by the father did not justify the cash deposits in the assessee's account and the assessee failed to prove the source of the deposits. The Tribunal found that it was unclear if there were sufficient withdrawals to justify the deposits and remanded the case back to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and sought withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had received Form-5 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as per the scheme's provisions.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made inquiries and taken a possible view, consistent with the department's stand in previous and subsequent assessment years. Therefore, the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263.

The tribunal noted the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue had no objection to the assessee's prayer for withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice by not affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order was set aside and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's actions to be bonafide and not due to negligence. The appeal was then allowed to the extent that the issue of property valuation was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on funds borrowed for specific projects and parked in FDRs due to project delays is not revenue in nature and thus not taxable. This decision distinguished the current facts from previous years where interest on surplus funds was held taxable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantiating that notices of hearing were served on the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the 12A registration was restored, the income of the assessee should be reassessed treating it as a registered trust. The impugned orders were set aside and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantiating that notices of hearing were served on the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantiating that notices of hearing were served on the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the 12A registration was restored, the income of the assessee should be reassessed treating it as a registered trust. The impugned orders were set aside and the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application for withdrawal and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee's object of improving livestock breeding and production in Haryana was specific. Therefore, the accumulation was permissible.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to explain the delay and then decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, finding that the reasons recorded for re-opening were vague and based on assumptions. This decision followed a similar ruling in a connected case with identical facts and reasons.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law and quashed the assessment orders. This decision was based on a previous ITAT ruling on identical facts and reasons for reassessment.

The Tribunal restored the limited issue of calculating the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to the Assessing Officer. This was to verify the assessee's submissions and calculations regarding own funds and investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately considered the assessee's submissions regarding the loans and investments. Due to the lack of necessary facts and fair adjudication, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the three companies. The authorities below failed to point out any cogent evidence to reject the provided financial details.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was a nullity as it was passed against a dead person without bringing the legal representatives on record. The AO failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 159 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that certain facts regarding payments made and amounts written back concerning sundry creditors were not brought to the notice of the lower authorities. Therefore, this issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also quashed the reassessment proceedings and deleted the additions made by the AO, following its own earlier decision on identical facts for other assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was not justified as no incriminating material was found. It also found the CIT(A)'s estimation of gross profit rate to be arbitrary and lacking justification, setting aside the addition.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was not justified as no incriminating material was found. It also found the CIT(A)'s estimation of gross profit rate to be arbitrary and lacking justification, setting aside the addition.

The Tribunal noted that it was unclear if the AO or CIT(A) had requested fresh evidence. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.