Loading ITAT cases…
283 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal held that while the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, the assessee could not furnish complete evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering the written submissions and documentary evidence from the assessee, as the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity previously.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without awaiting the CCIT's decision on the pending condonation petition for delayed filing of the return. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after the CCIT's decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the quantum appeal, based on which the penalty was levied, had been restored to the CIT(A) by the ITAT. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the penalty matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering the written submissions and documentary evidence from the assessee, as the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity previously.
The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) arbitrarily rejected the books of accounts. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide complete evidence, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to estimate profit at 3% of turnover, setting aside the lower authorities' order. The AO was also directed to verify the eligibility of carry-forward losses.
The Tribunal held that the statute does not prescribe a time limit for filing Form 10. Relying on High Court decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case to the AO to consider the merits of Form 10.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's decision to hire gold stock was a better business option than taking a loan to purchase it, considering the interest cost involved. The hire charges were incurred solely for the purpose of business.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the assessee had opted for the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024, to settle the dispute. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn under the VSVS-2024 scheme, with no objection from the Revenue.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to set aside the ex-parte orders and remit the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication, subject to the assessee paying costs and appearing before the AO with complete details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices and the ex-parte nature of the earlier orders. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- per appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices and the ex-parte nature of the earlier orders. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/- per appeal.
The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB is directory and not mandatory. Since the report was filed before the assessment was completed, the deduction under Section 80IAC should be allowed.
The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition should be the value recorded in the assessee's books as per the amalgamation, not the lower value used by the AO. It also held that the loan waiver cannot be taxed under Section 41(1).
The Tribunal held that the primary legal ground regarding the limitation of the assessment order was dismissed. However, on the merits of the addition of professional fees, the Tribunal found the AO's order to be cryptic and the CIT(A)'s decision to be ad-hoc. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the primary legal ground regarding the limitation of the assessment order was dismissed. However, on the merits of the addition of professional fees, the Tribunal found the AO's order to be cryptic and the CIT(A)'s decision to be ad-hoc. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB is directory and not mandatory. Since the report was filed before the assessment was completed, the deduction under Section 80IAC should be allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that interest on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is part of the compensation and is exempt from income tax under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. Citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the nexus between the cash deposits and turnover and could not explain the source of these deposits with documentary evidence. To meet the ends of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the claim for cost of improvement was not substantiated with evidence. However, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54 for the purchase of a new house property.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are based on estimates. The additions made were below Rs. 50 lakhs, and several judicial precedents supported this view.
The Tribunal found merit in the DRP's observation that the previous ITAT order did not explicitly quash the Section 263 proceedings and that the additions were not directly made in the Section 263 order. However, on the merits of the addition for fees for included services, the Tribunal held it was not taxable in India.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are based on estimates. The additions made were below Rs. 50 lakhs, and several judicial precedents supported this view.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation adequate. The Tribunal found that Section 40(a)(ia) mandates only a 30% disallowance and therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to add back the differential amount of Rs. 7,79,000/- was not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are based on estimates. The additions made were below Rs. 50 lakhs, and several judicial precedents supported this view.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are based on estimates. The additions made were below Rs. 50 lakhs, and several judicial precedents supported this view.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the case for adjudication on merits, emphasizing that the assessee be given an opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed.
The Tribunal held that the claim for cost of improvement was not substantiated with evidence. However, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54 for the purchase of a new house property.
The Tribunal found no evidence from the AO that the deposits were unrelated to the assessee's admitted business or that demonetization was initiated for these activities. Relying on a coordinate bench decision (TASMAC), it held that legitimate SBN receipts are not illegal and their source is similar to other currency. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the impugned amount.
The Tribunal held that no appeal lies against the order of the CIT(E) passed on a petition for condonation of delay under Section 119(b)(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for adjudication after providing the assessee another opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel informed them about the decision to opt for the VSVS scheme and the desire to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It was noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the limitation period due to Covid-19. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for adjudication on merit.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) should have admitted the appeal and decided the case on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the limitation period due to Covid-19, and therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided details of customers from whom cash advances were received and their accounting in the books of account. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the CIT(A) had not addressed the merits of the case. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication (de novo) with directions for the assessee to ensure full compliance with all statutory notices. A cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee for wasting judicial time, payable to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear and the ex-parte nature of the order, restored the appeal to the AO for denovo assessment, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to furnish evidence and pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make presumptive additions based on surmises without proper evidence. The AO also failed to dispute the assessee's books of accounts which showed the deposits as business receipts. Furthermore, the AO did not follow the CBDT's Standard Operating Procedure for demonetization cases and made computational errors.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were not prosecuted before the CIT(A) because the assessee missed receiving notices. While acknowledging the assessee's default, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the AO for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E). The Tribunal set aside the appeals to the file of CIT(E) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the issue required re-verification at the Assessing Officer (AO) level. The appeal was set aside and remitted back to the AO to call for the necessary vouchers and certificates, with an assurance from the assessee's counsel to provide all requisites.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition of LTCG of Rs. 18,92,30,000/- in the hands of the assessee was unjustified and directed its deletion. The Tribunal found that the Revenue itself, through its various actions and assessments, had acknowledged Mr. T.S.R. Khannaiyann (TSRK) as the beneficial owner and actual transferor of the impugned property. This was evidenced by TSRK's initial admission of LTCG, the purchaser's actions of paying consideration and deducting TDS in TSRK's name, and subsequent assessments in TSRK's hands and the buyer's hands (M/s. Hindusthan Educational & Charitable Trust) which treated TSRK as the rightful recipient of the sale consideration. The Tribunal noted that the purchaser had also offered excess consideration to tax under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, further reinforcing that TSRK was the party to the transaction. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that taxing the assessee, who only conveyed title without beneficial interest or receipt of consideration, would lead to unjust enrichment and triple taxation. The ratio decidendi is that where the Revenue has already taxed the beneficial owner and transferor for capital gains arising from a property sale, it cannot subsequently tax the legal title holder who merely conveyed title as per an agreement, especially when the legal title holder did not receive any sale consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the Covid-19 pandemic. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo hearing on merits.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) and the ex-parte nature of the AO's order, restored the appeal to the AO for de novo assessment. This was done to ensure principles of natural justice, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 to be paid by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of PF and ESIC contributions was justified, as per the Supreme Court's ruling, and the "Checkmate Services" judgment applies retrospectively. However, the issue regarding the Section 80JJAA deduction was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E). The Tribunal set aside the appeals to the file of CIT(E) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reference made by the AO to the TPO on August 3, 2017, for computing the Arm's Length Price (ALP) regarding Specified Domestic Transactions under Section 92BA(1) of the Act was ab initio void. This was because Section 92BA(1) had been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, effective April 1, 2017. Consequently, the AO lacked the jurisdiction to refer the Specified Domestic Transaction to the TPO. The Tribunal found that the TPO's order dated April 10, 2018, and the subsequent adjustment ordered by the AO on August 23, 2018, to the tune of Rs. 2,27,75,890/-, were without jurisdiction and therefore bad in law. The Tribunal confirmed the impugned action on this legal issue, rendering the Revenue's grounds on merits academic. The deletion order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was confirmed on the basis of this legal finding. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.