Loading ITAT cases…
309 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the assessee's application for condonation of delay in filing the return of income u/s 139(1) was pending before the Competent Authority. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO to await the decision on the condonation petition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the appeals were allowed. For AY 2016-17 and 2018-19, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2017-18, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the appeals were allowed. For AY 2016-17 and 2018-19, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2017-18, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 201 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of awareness of procedures. The case was remitted back to the FAA to consider the delay condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing TDS statements under Section 200A of the Act is invalid for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c) with effect from 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that for reopening beyond four years, the AO must record not only the escapement of income but also the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. In this case, the assessee had disclosed the information, and the reopening was based on a change of opinion rather than new material or assessee's failure.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the AO for a fresh hearing on merits. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by the assessee with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is contrary to the e-assessment scheme. Therefore, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting a reasonable cause due to business losses and SARFAESI proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal addressed three primary issues. Firstly, concerning the additions for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Tribunal noted the CIT(A)'s reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) found that the absence of regular books of accounts and supporting evidence for the figures in the financial statements, discovered during the search and corroborated by the assessee's statement, constituted incriminating material. This led the Tribunal to uphold the CIT(A)'s finding that additions could be made even in unabated assessments if incriminating material was found. Consequently, the appeals for these years were allowed, implying the additions were deleted based on this reasoning, though the specific reasoning for allowing them is not fully detailed in the provided text for these years. Secondly, regarding the addition for unexplained jewellery (AY 2017-18), the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the AO failed to apply the guidelines of CBDT Instruction No.1916. The Tribunal directed that a standard allowance for jewellery (100 grams per male member) should be considered. Based on this, the Tribunal confirmed an addition of Rs.2,19,385/- for 89 grams of unexplained jewellery and deleted the balance of Rs.7,39,500/-, thus partly allowing the appeal on this issue. Thirdly, concerning the addition for investment in immovable property (AY 2018-19), the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the addition should be taxed at normal rates. The Tribunal noted the absence of material from the Revenue proving the investment was from undisclosed sources and the assessee's sole engagement in business. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to compute tax at normal rates on the Rs.73,25,679/- addition, allowing the ground raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing TDS statements under Section 200A of the Act is invalid for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c) with effect from 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the appeals were allowed. For AY 2016-17 and 2018-19, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2017-18, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The petition to admit additional evidence (list of members) was allowed in the interest of justice, and the Assessing Officer was directed to consider this list while passing the order.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing TDS statements under Section 200A of the Act is invalid for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c) with effect from 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing TDS statements under Section 200A of the Act is invalid for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c) with effect from 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding that the assessee's failure to comply with statutory notices amounted to clear non-compliance. It concluded that the Assessing Officer had rightly levied the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d), and the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming it.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act while processing TDS statements under Section 200A of the Act is invalid for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 200A(1)(c) with effect from 01.06.2015.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the cause reasonable. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and submissions. This restoration is conditional on the assessee depositing Rs. 15,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause and no latches on the part of the assessee. The proceedings before the FAA were ex-parte due to the assessee not responding to notices, which were allegedly sent to a wrong email address. The matter was remitted to the FAA for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a new clause (iv) was added to the first proviso of Section 80G(5) by the Finance Act, 2024, effective from 01.10.2024, which allows applications to be submitted at any time after the commencement of activities. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the assessee's application under this new provision.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit and that no constitutional validity was involved. Therefore, the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted an opportunity to file submissions and evidence, keeping in mind natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice in the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on both legal and merits grounds.
The Tribunal held that the evidence produced by the assessee, including a corrected certificate from the Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and other documents, conclusively established the hospital as a 100-bed facility. The earlier erroneous certification was rectified.
The tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer was invalid, following the decisions of the Bombay and Madras High Courts. Consequently, the reassessment order based on this invalid notice was also set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 332 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation as a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and decided to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, despite agreeing with the Revenue's submission regarding the assessee's non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A). The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. The assessee was directed to substantiate its case with all evidence and documents forthwith, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to proceed as per law. The assessee's counsel assured diligent prosecution of the case. The stay petition filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the opportunity of being heard is a fundamental right and the CIT(E) passed a stereotyped order without proper adjudication. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order violated principles of natural justice as the assessee was not heard. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the matter concerning unexplained cash deposits was not adequately analyzed by the lower authorities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making ad-hoc disallowances without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts or providing evidence of non-genuine expenses. The department cannot dictate the reasonable amount of expenditure for a business.
The Tribunal held that while the delay was undeniable, in the interest of justice, the matter deserved remission to the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and directed a fresh adjudication after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate a violation of Section 13(3) as the conditions in Explanation 3(ii) were not met. The Tribunal also noted that the expenses were not found to be outside the trust's objectives.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid and bad in law because it was issued by the JAO, contrary to the Faceless Scheme notified under Section 151A. Consequently, the reassessment order was also deemed null.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, finding a reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders, passed without ensuring proper service of notices, constituted a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the appeals for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with directions for the assessee to file documents and for the CIT(A) to provide a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not in order. The AO had conducted inquiries within the limited scope of scrutiny, and the PCIT's differing opinion did not make the AO's order erroneous. The Tribunal distinguished between 'lack of enquiry' and 'inadequate enquiry'.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not warranted. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in the TASMAC case, stating that SBNs, even if not legal tender, could be accepted at face value and disclosure of source was not required. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence connecting the deposits to sales.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, passed without quoting the DIN in its body, is in violation of the binding CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the omission vitiates the assessment order, rendering it invalid.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 due to the AO's lack of inquiry. However, the AO must consider evidence from the assessee to determine the correct profit rate, even if it's less than 8%.
The Tribunal held that the finance costs on securitization were correctly accounted for as per RBI regulations and not a sham transaction. It also held that the cash deposits in SBNs were not necessarily tainted and relied on a coordinate bench decision regarding the legal tender status of SBNs.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the expenses were for the trust's charitable activities and their genuineness was not doubted by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the trust's books were audited and the expenses were properly recorded, supporting the deletion of the disallowances.
The Tribunal held that for private discretionary trusts taxed at MMR, the surcharge should be computed with reference to the rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading 'surcharge on income tax', which imposed a cap of 15% on surcharge for income including dividend or capital gains.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A)'s action of passing an ex parte order without hearing the assessee violated principles of natural justice. The order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided a prudent explanation for the cash deposit, supported by bank statements and cash flow statements. The previous withdrawals and pin money savings were considered genuine sources.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not mandatory, as it is directory in nature. Since the assessee filed Form 67 before the completion of assessment and the Act does not prescribe consequences for delayed filing, the FTC claim is allowable.
The Tribunal held that Section 194C(6) and 194C(7) are independent. A procedural lapse in filing Form 26Q does not override substantive compliance with Section 194C(6) for exemption from disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making ad-hoc disallowances without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts or providing evidence of non-genuine expenses. The department cannot dictate the reasonable amount of expenditure for a business.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without going into the merits, despite the mandate under Section 250(6) of the Act to pass a reasoned order. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting additions of Rs.5,50,000/- (professional receipts under Section 44ADA), Rs.2,00,000/- (wife's savings), Rs.3,50,000/- (gift from father-in-law), and Rs.1,80,000/- (part of agricultural income). However, the tribunal sustained additions for Rs.3,00,000/- (gift from sister) and Rs.2,00,000/- (cash gifts during naming ceremony) totaling Rs.9,70,000/- as unexplained cash.
The Tribunal held that a new provision, clause (iv) to the first proviso of Section 80G(5), effective from 01.10.2024, allows applications to be submitted at any time after the commencement of activities. The assessee's application should be considered under this new clause.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, finding a reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders, passed without ensuring proper service of notices, constituted a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the appeals for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with directions for the assessee to file documents and for the CIT(A) to provide a proper hearing.