Loading ITAT cases…
159 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of annual maintenance charges due to the assessee's failure to provide adequate details. However, the issue of setting off income against these charges was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of annual maintenance charges due to the assessee's failure to provide adequate details. However, the issue of setting off income against these charges was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of annual maintenance charges due to the assessee's failure to provide adequate details. However, the issue of setting off income against these charges was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte disposal of appeals was inappropriate given the substantial additions to income and the resulting disproportionate tax liability compared to the assessee's alleged negligence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all assessment years and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to submit necessary details before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte disposal of appeals was inappropriate given the substantial additions to income and the resulting disproportionate tax liability compared to the assessee's alleged negligence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all assessment years and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to submit necessary details before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte disposal of appeals was inappropriate given the substantial additions to income and the resulting disproportionate tax liability compared to the assessee's alleged negligence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all assessment years and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to submit necessary details before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal observed that the impugned additions were based solely on third-party data, including alleged tally data and statements, which were not confronted to the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice. Following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2018-19, where similar reassessment was quashed, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and deleted the additions for both AY 2017-18 and 2019-20.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient excess funds from AY 1999-2000 and 2001-02 to cover the additions for AY 2000-01 (Rs.2,40,624/-) and for AY 2002-03 (Rs.16,72,680/- for undisclosed income and Rs.9,26,322/- for vehicle purchase), thus deleting these additions. The capital gains addition for AY 2002-03 was restricted to the assessee's own computation of Rs.2,72,568/-, but the deduction u/s 54 was denied due to lack of substantiation.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 after 01.04.2021 is time-barred and not saved by the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The Tribunal further ruled that a jurisdictional defect could be examined at any stage, making the CIT(A)'s dismissal for non-prosecution irrelevant to the legality of the reassessment.
The ITAT deleted the addition of Rs. 55.97 Lacs, noting that the assessee maintained proper tax-audited books with quantitative details, and field inquiries confirmed transactions with the job worker. The ad-hoc addition of Rs. 2 Lacs for estimated profit was also deleted. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 2,77,868/- levied under section 271AAC was also set aside.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effects for the quantum appeal (Rs. 3,77,743/-) and penalty orders (Rs. 37,260/-, Rs. 10,000/-) were all below the Rs. 60 lacs monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular, and none of the exceptional clauses applied. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals as not maintainable. However, it granted the Revenue liberty to revive the appeals via a Miscellaneous Application if re-verification showed a higher tax effect or if an exceptional clause applied, within the time limit stipulated under Section 254(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal, applying principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E). The registration applications under sections 12(1)(ac)(ii) and 80G(5)(iii) are restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee is directed to furnish the required information and substantiate its applications.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were erroneous as they failed to consider mandatory statutory provisions regarding the taxation of interest income. The Pr. CIT's revisionary powers under Section 263 were found to be validly invoked, and the assessment orders were set aside with directions for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of annual maintenance charges due to the assessee's failure to provide adequate details. However, the issue of setting off income against these charges was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's documents regarding cost of improvement were not thoroughly examined by the AO, and therefore, the CIT(A)'s action of remanding the case for proper verification was justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal, emphasizing principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to present and prove its case, keeping all issues open.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking, cryptic, and lacking logical reasoning, factual discussion, evidence examination, or legal analysis. It did not address key procedural aspects or the applicability of law. Therefore, with the consent of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh speaking order after proper adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's disability and reliance on others. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide an effective hearing opportunity and imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the AO should not have issued repetitive notices to levy penalty for non-compliance; instead, the AO should have finalized the assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal confined the penalty to Rs. 10,000 for the non-compliance of statutory notices, deleting the remaining part of the penalty.
The Tribunal found that although the initial notice under Section 148A was issued within three years, the subsequent order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were issued after three years had expired (on 07.04.2022). As per Section 151, approval for re-assessment after three years must be from the Chief Commissioner. Since approval was taken from the PCIT, the re-assessment was not in accordance with law and was therefore quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty, stating that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is computed on additions made to the total income. Since the fresh assessment order made no additions to the returned income, there was no legal basis to sustain the penalty against the assessee. The appeal filed by the Revenue was therefore dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (capital + unsecured loan) to cover the advances given to individuals, thus the advances were presumed to be from interest-free funds. The advance to Goverdhan Bottling Plant was for business purposes to secure supplies. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in S.A. Builders Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that no disallowance was warranted, especially as the CIT(A) relied on an overruled judgment.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. Since the notice u/s 148 was issued after four years from the relevant assessment year and the original assessment was a scrutiny assessment, reopening was permissible only if income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly. The Tribunal found that the AO merely re-appreciated facts already on record, amounting to a change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reopening after the expiry of four years.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s technical rejection incorrect, as the core grievance was consistently the denial of full TDS credit. Recognizing the assessee's role as a Kaccha Arhtia where only commission income is taxable, the Tribunal directed CPC to grant full TDS credit as per Form 26AS, concluding that the full gross receipts need not be offered to tax.
The Tribunal held that a rejection of rectification intimation u/s 154 is an appealable order before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)'s dismissal in limine was incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice despite the assessee's negligence, granted a final opportunity for *de novo* adjudication before the CIT(A). This is conditional upon the assessee depositing Rs.10,000/- to the 'Prime Minister's National Relief Fund' within 30 days and providing proof to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee maintained regular audited books, had sufficient stock, and sales were reflected in VAT returns and offered to tax. It found no material to prove the cash sales were not genuine, and a separate addition would lead to impermissible double taxation. Therefore, the impugned addition was deleted.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee maintained audited books, declared a substantial turnover, and that sales were corroborated by VAT returns with no stock discrepancy found during a survey. The Tribunal concluded that merely high turnover in one month was insufficient ground to conclude sales were not genuine without further evidence, and finding substantial merits in the assessee's arguments and documentary evidence, deleted the impugned addition.
Despite acknowledging the assessee's negligence and non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity based on the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was admitted and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to diligently present its case.
The Tribunal held that a small delay of 71 days should have been condoned, emphasizing principles of natural justice to provide another opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to frame assessment de novo, with the assessee directed to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that a significant portion occurred during the Covid-19 lockdown period. Applying principles of natural justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case to the Ld. AO for a fresh assessment (de novo), granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not examine the issues in the correct perspective. Regarding the cash deposits and other transactions, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a detailed explanation and documentary evidence, including fees collected from students. The Tribunal found that the payments made to Arjun Vehicle Pollution Testing Centre, though having minor variations in bills, were for the day-to-day running of the institution and did not indicate that the society was not being run in accordance with its objectives. The Tribunal also noted that there were no 'specified persons' involved in the transactions as contemplated under Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) cancelling the registration under Section 10(23C) and restored the registration to its original form. For ITA No. 1634/2025, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication based on the findings in ITA No. 1633/2025.
The ITAT noted that voluminous Paper Books were filed before it containing evidence not presented to the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee liberty to file fresh evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not examine the issues in the correct perspective. Regarding the cash deposits and other transactions, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a detailed explanation and documentary evidence, including fees collected from students. The Tribunal found that the payments made to Arjun Vehicle Pollution Testing Centre, though having minor variations in bills, were for the day-to-day running of the institution and did not indicate that the society was not being run in accordance with its objectives. The Tribunal also noted that there were no 'specified persons' involved in the transactions as contemplated under Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) cancelling the registration under Section 10(23C) and restored the registration to its original form. For ITA No. 1634/2025, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication based on the findings in ITA No. 1633/2025.
The Tribunal held that since the reassessment notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr. CCIT) as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. The approval from Pr. CIT was not in compliance with the law.
The tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the assessee had indeed claimed the income tax expenses as a deduction in the return of income. The AO is directed to delete the addition if the expenses were not claimed, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance in submitting documents despite opportunities. However, considering the element of natural justice, it remanded the case back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, instructing the CIT(E) to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the ‘Poor Patient Welfare Fund’.
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's claim as per law and make necessary adjustments of interest after providing due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the ex parte assessment and the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the magnitude of the addition and principles of natural justice, granted one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the source of deposits. The case is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- in the Poor Patient Relief Fund, PGI, Chandigarh within 30 days. Failure to comply with this condition will result in the restoration order being vacated and the CIT(A)'s order reviving.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals on technical grounds without addressing the merits, which violated natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate claims with evidence.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's prayer for withdrawal, supported by the appeal effect order passed under section 250 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, which had computed a NIL demand. Since the Ld. DR had no objection, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to consider mandatory provisions for taxing interest on enhanced compensation. The Pr. CIT had validly invoked Section 263 after independent application of mind.
The ITAT condoned the 2-day delay in filing the appeal before it, acknowledging the reasons provided. It noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on account of a 79-day delay without addressing the merits of the penalty. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to consider mandatory provisions for taxing interest on enhanced compensation. The Pr. CIT had validly invoked Section 263 after independent application of mind.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the dispute has been fully and finally settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2016, as evidenced by Form-4 issued by the Revenue. Consequently, it held that nothing survives for adjudication in the appeal, rendering it non-maintainable and infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to consider mandatory provisions for taxing interest on enhanced compensation. The Pr. CIT had validly invoked Section 263 after independent application of mind.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the lack of objection from the Revenue. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance regarding the ex-parte nature of the orders and violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to consider mandatory provisions for taxing interest on enhanced compensation. The Pr. CIT had validly invoked Section 263 after independent application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to consider mandatory provisions for taxing interest on enhanced compensation. The Pr. CIT had validly invoked Section 263 after independent application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to consider mandatory provisions for taxing interest on enhanced compensation. The Pr. CIT had validly invoked Section 263 after independent application of mind.