Loading ITAT cases…
159 orders · Page 3 of 4
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.
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.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration in a casual manner without proper consideration of the material on record or providing an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with 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 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.
The Tribunal accepted the prayer of the Ld. AR to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal observed that the original girdawari was not presented before the Assessing Officer, thus depriving the AO of an opportunity to examine the facts. Consequently, the case is remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is instructed to obtain a remand report from the AO and provide the assessee with ample opportunity to present evidence and details.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the permissible time limit as per the relevant provisions and judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, confirming the penalty levied under Section 271C. The Tribunal reiterated that the exemption under Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act applies only to travel within India, not foreign travel, and therefore, TDS was mandatorily required to be deducted on such payments. The decision was based on a binding Supreme Court judgment in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's prior non-cooperation, decided to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, contingent on the assessee paying Rs. 50,000/- in costs to a charity within 30 days.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the permissible time limit as per the relevant provisions and judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
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 additions based on documents and digital data recovered from a third party, Sh. Ravi Kapoor, who is an independent broker, cannot be sustained. No incriminating material was found from the assessee's premises.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the principle of advancing substantial justice. The core issue of the assessee's eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was not settled and had been consistently relegated to the lower authorities. The High Court had also recently remitted the issue for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that a co-operative society is required to get its accounts audited under Section 48 of the Punjab State Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. According to Explanation-2(a)(ii) to Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, the due date for filing the return for such entities is 31st October. Since the assessee filed its return on 31-10-2019, which falls within the prescribed due date, the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) is allowable, and the AO was directed to re-compute the income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the principle of advancing substantial justice. The core issue of the assessee's eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was not settled and had been consistently relegated to the lower authorities. The High Court had also recently remitted the issue for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in cancelling the registration granted to the assessee under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not attributed any specified violation committed by the assessee as contemplated in Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act. The receipt of a donation from a donee, without any further evidence of misuse, does not fall under the violations listed in Section 12AB(4). The Tribunal noted the CIT(E)'s apprehension regarding the donation from Shri Kailash Rajwani being from a foreign account, but referred to Q&A No. 8 of the FCRA regulations, which clarifies that contributions made by Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) from their personal savings through normal banking channels are not treated as foreign contributions. The Tribunal emphasized that the obligation under Section 12AB(4) is on how donations are applied, not on verifying the credentials of every donor. The CIT(E) failed to lay her hand on any incriminating material beyond expressing suspicion on one donation. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) did not allow an opportunity for cross-examination, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was deemed unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, restoring the registration granted to the assessee under Section 12A.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was not sustainable as it should have been passed under Section 148 read with Section 143(3) of the Act, following a coordinate bench decision. The Tribunal also found that the approval obtained was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 148B.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO's ad-hoc disallowances were not justified. It concurred that merely asserting a lack of certain details like truck numbers or e-way bills was insufficient to conclude incorrect claims, especially when the AO failed to conduct proper verification or distinguish invoices. The Tribunal affirmed that the expenses were incurred for business purposes and that the AO made bald allegations without detailed examination or pointing out specific violations, thus validating the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by an unauthorized officer under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, rendering the notice invalid. Furthermore, the addition was unsustainable as it relied solely on third-party digital material and statements without independent corroboration or cross-examination.
The Tribunal observed that new documentary evidence presented by the assessee was not examined by the lower authorities. Without deciding on the merits of the addition, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing verification of the additional evidence and providing the assessee with an adequate hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's bonafide reasons and the liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" for condonation. It ruled that both the ex-parte assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were unsustainable as they failed to adjudicate the issues on merit. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment with directions for proper notice and opportunity for the assessee to present her case.
The tribunal upheld the penalty, ruling that the assessee was statutorily obligated to deduct tax at source under Section 194C, even as a mere channel for funds. It found no conclusive evidence that HPSIDC had deducted the tax or that the responsibility was legally transferred. The tribunal also rejected the assessee's plea of bona fide belief or reasonable cause under Section 273B, stating that administrative convenience or ignorance of the law does not justify non-compliance.
The Tribunal, considering new evidence including a bank certificate correcting errors and Form 26AS submitted by the assessee, set aside the orders of both the AO and the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the file of the AO for verification of these documents, especially the bank certificate confirming no deposit of Rs. 8.94 Cr as alleged, and to re-determine the assessee's income.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was vitiated for assessment years beyond six years from the search, as the conditions for invoking it were not met. Furthermore, the additions were deleted on merits due to lack of proper evidence and violation of natural justice principles.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was vitiated for assessment years beyond six years from the search, as the conditions for invoking it were not met. Furthermore, the additions were deleted on merits due to lack of proper evidence and violation of natural justice principles.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, concluding there was no deliberate attempt by the assessee to delay proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents on liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. However, noting that complete details were not submitted to the AO initially and documents filed with the Tribunal were unverified, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the issues to the AO for fresh examination to determine the actual TDS liability.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, concluding there was no deliberate attempt by the assessee to delay proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents on liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. However, noting that complete details were not submitted to the AO initially and documents filed with the Tribunal were unverified, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the issues to the AO for fresh examination to determine the actual TDS liability.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, concluding there was no deliberate attempt by the assessee to delay proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents on liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. However, noting that complete details were not submitted to the AO initially and documents filed with the Tribunal were unverified, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the issues to the AO for fresh examination to determine the actual TDS liability.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution instead of deciding on merits, which contravenes Section 250(6). To prevent multiplicity of litigation and allow for proper adjudication, the Tribunal set aside the orders of both lower authorities and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, concluding there was no deliberate attempt by the assessee to delay proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedents on liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. However, noting that complete details were not submitted to the AO initially and documents filed with the Tribunal were unverified, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the issues to the AO for fresh examination to determine the actual TDS liability.
The Tribunal noted that while transactions were in the books and the payee received direct donations for construction, the assessee failed to specify the exact work performed and provide confirmation from the payee. Given the assessee's substantial non-compliance before lower authorities, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue was restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, with directions for the assessee to address the identified shortcomings.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration by the CIT(E) was not sustainable. The assessee is an old trust with a history of running educational institutions and had prior registration under Section 12A. The sole reason for cancellation was the submission of documents belonging to another trust, Smt. Maya Devi Sahadev Educational Society, which the assessee attributed to a clerical error by their computer operator. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not conduct a thorough examination of the facts. Specifically, the CIT(E) failed to ascertain whether the assessee's original registration certificate (issued in December 2003) was still valid when the new registration scheme came into effect from April 1, 2021. The Tribunal observed that even if a mistake occurred on the part of the professional handling the application, it should not automatically lead to cancellation. The CIT(E) should have verified the existence of the assessee's prior registration by calling for records or checking departmental registers, rather than assuming non-existence based on a single erroneous submission. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed the order without proper application of mind and without recording any finding of fraud. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed, and the registration granted to the assessee was restored. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of being an agriculturist who could substantiate the bank credits. Recognizing the principles of natural justice, the tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the information forming the basis for reopening pertained to AY 2015-16, not the relevant AY 2014-15, and the AO's reasons were contradictory. Since the assessment was reopened after four years and a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) was already completed, the AO failed to establish that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was held to be bad in law, and the additions were not sustainable on merits as no transactions were found for AY 2014-15.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A). This was to enable the assessee to seek the appropriate remedy under Section 119(2)(b) from the proper forum, with the final disposition of the appeal dependent on the outcome of that application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by applying a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. It further held that the notice for reassessment was issued by the jurisdictional AO after the prescribed date and by a non-existent entity, rendering the assessment order void.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the first and second provisos to Section 50C, as part consideration was received through banking channels on the agreement date. The relevant stamp duty valuation date should be the agreement date (March 2012), not the registration date (May 2012). The Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remitted the case to the AO for re-adjudication, directing the AO to determine the stamp duty valuation as of March 2012.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A was vitiated for assessment years beyond six years from the search, as the conditions for invoking it were not met. Furthermore, the additions were deleted on merits due to lack of proper evidence and violation of natural justice principles.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1041 days, finding 'sufficient cause' due to the non-service of the penalty order and the assessee's diligence in challenging the quantum addition. On merits, it held that the transactions were normal sales from a karyana shop, not loans or deposits violating Section 269, and therefore, no penalty under Section 271E was imposable. The tribunal emphasized a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' based on Supreme Court precedents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) erred by not first deciding the jurisdictional issue of whether the re-opening of assessment was valid. The AO lacked a 'live nexus' between information and the belief of escaped income, relying only on portal data without collecting complete bank statements. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) to first determine the validity of the re-opening of assessment, and only then proceed to adjudicate the issues on merit, noting that prima facie, the loan amount was Rs. 30 lakhs, not Rs. 1 Crore.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked tangible material and a live nexus between the information received and the formation of a belief that income had escaped assessment. The AO merely relied on information from the Insight Portal without independent verification or awareness of specific details of the transaction. Consequently, the reopening of assessment and the additions made were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the 1290-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's financial hardship. On merits, the quantum addition was restricted to Rs. 2 Lakhs, deleting the balance amount. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted given the significant relief provided in the quantum addition.