Loading ITAT cases…
303 orders · Page 4 of 7
The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's conclusion of falsification of entries was not established, there were accounting deficiencies. Following a jurisdictional High Court precedent, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profits due to these deficiencies.
The Tribunal held that the late fee charged under Section 234E of the Act for processing TDS returns under Section 200A of the Act is invalid prior to the amendment of Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015 (w.e.f. 01.06.2015). However, for the financial year 2015-16, the levy is justified.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, noting a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, noting a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application, filed after the due date under clause (iii) of the proviso to Section 80G(5), could be treated as an application under the newly amended clause (iv)(B) of the same proviso, which allows applications after commencement of activities. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to examine the application on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection was primarily due to the lack of documentary evidence. In the interest of natural justice, the case was remitted back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case and furnish necessary details.
The Tribunal held that it is mandatory for the AO to dispose of objections to reopening by way of a speaking order. Failure to do so renders the entire reassessment proceedings void.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO was not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme and was therefore invalid. This decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the protective addition as there was no tangible or corroborative material to substantiate the alleged investment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had rightly deleted the addition.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate one of the grounds raised by the assessee, which pertained to the debatable nature of disallowing MMR for section 115JB computation. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) provided opportunities for hearing, which the assessee missed. However, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to participate in the appellate proceedings. However, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order without the assessee's participation and without considering submissions. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and set aside the order, remitting the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(E) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case in the interest of justice and equity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(E) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case in the interest of justice and equity.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to participate in the appellate proceedings due to non-receipt of notices. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide another opportunity to the assessee.
The tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) as mandated by the e-assessment scheme. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the tribunal set aside the notice and consequential orders.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 was issued by the JAO, which is not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme notified by the CBDT. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to participate in proceedings before the AO and CIT(A). While setting aside the CIT(A) order, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148A and consequential orders were not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, which mandates faceless assessment. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned notice and consequential orders.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had rejected the application within 10 days of filing, without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s.148 and consequential orders were invalid as they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit (NFAC) after the e-assessment scheme came into effect. The assessment proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory faceless procedure.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO was not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme and was therefore invalid. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.
The tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was bad in law because the AO had not issued a notice under Section 143(2) earlier and the reopening was based on a change of opinion without fresh material. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had erred by dismissing the appeal based on a previously dismissed Tribunal order, ignoring a later binding order. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it was not issued in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, which mandates faceless issuance. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the notice and consequential orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 270A was bad in law as the addition was made under Section 69 of the Act, for which Section 271AAC is the applicable penalty provision. Since the CIT(A) had modified the assessment by estimating income, penalty under Section 270A was not invocable.
The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) needs no interference and dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal also held that the rectification order invoking Section 115BBE was not applicable as the addition was classified as unaccounted business income, not unexplained investment.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was not issued in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, which mandates automated allocation and faceless proceedings. Consequently, the notice and consequential assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not require interference. The addition was confirmed as unaccounted business income, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was not issued in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, which mandates automated allocation and faceless proceedings. Consequently, the notice and consequential assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 224 days, citing sufficient cause for the belated filing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on payment of costs by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was not issued in accordance with the e-assessment scheme, which mandates automated allocation and faceless proceedings. Consequently, the notice and consequential assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption u/s 11 should be restricted only to the extent of income that violates section 13(1)(c) and not the entire income. The disallowance u/s 40A(3) was restricted to the amount determined by the CIT(A). The cross-objections regarding the validity of the search were dismissed, but the issue concerning the quantification of on-money payment for agricultural land was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption u/s 11 should be restricted only to the extent of income that violates section 13(1)(c) and not the entire income. The disallowance u/s 40A(3) was restricted to the amount determined by the CIT(A). The cross-objections regarding the validity of the search were dismissed, but the issue concerning the quantification of on-money payment for agricultural land was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption u/s 11 should be restricted only to the extent of income that violates section 13(1)(c) and not the entire income. The disallowance u/s 40A(3) was restricted to the amount determined by the CIT(A). The cross-objections regarding the validity of the search were dismissed, but the issue concerning the quantification of on-money payment for agricultural land was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption u/s 11 should be restricted only to the extent of income that violates section 13(1)(c) and not the entire income. The disallowance u/s 40A(3) was restricted to the amount determined by the CIT(A). The cross-objections regarding the validity of the search were dismissed, but the issue concerning the quantification of on-money payment for agricultural land was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that delayed remittance of employee contributions to PF/ESI, even if deposited before the return filing due date, is not allowable as a deduction as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The issue was not debatable at the time of processing, and such adjustments are permissible under section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that the classification of branches as rural should be strictly based on population data from the latest census. It also ruled that stale draft accounts are not income of the assessee and ex-gratia payments are deductible. The issue of bad debts was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the classification of branches as rural should be strictly based on population data from the latest census. It also ruled that stale draft accounts are not income of the assessee and ex-gratia payments are deductible. The issue of bad debts was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the process of converting field latex into ribbed smoked sheets is an integral part of agricultural operations and not manufacturing or processing as contemplated under Rule 7A. Therefore, the entire income from the sale of ribbed smoked rubber sheets is to be treated as agricultural income.
The Tribunal held that the timelines for filing applications for registration u/s 80G are directory and not mandatory, especially in light of genuine hardships and amendments to the Act. Therefore, delayed applications can be considered.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO under Section 10AA for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14. The Tribunal reasoned that the AO's arbitrary adjustment by applying an overall net profit ratio was not tenable, especially when the assessee maintained unit-wise profit and loss accounts and submitted Form 56F. The CIT(A)'s reliance on the Madras High Court's decision regarding separate books of accounts for exempt units was also found to be correct. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on this issue. Regarding the transfer pricing issue, the Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the TPO was not sustainable. It was noted that Polaris UK was a holding company of Polaris Netherlands, and the assessee had no inter-company arrangement or transactions with Polaris Netherlands. The profits earned by Polaris Netherlands were independent and had no nexus with the international transactions between the assessee and Polaris UK. Therefore, the adjustment was deleted, and the assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed. For the Section 80JJAA issue, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence produced by the assessee and directed the AO to consider it for verification and allow the deduction if eligible. This ground was partly allowed.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as withdrawn. This decision was based on the assessee's submission of a letter dated 06.11.2025 indicating their opt-in to the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, along with the requisite Form 2 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's stated intention to settle the dispute under the scheme. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) had failed to conduct independent inquiries and had relied heavily on previous orders. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked application of mind and set aside the order.
The Tribunal found no sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 1273 days in filing the appeal, stating that the assessee's reasons lacked *bona fide*. Consequently, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal determined that the issue of applying Section 44AD instead of Section 44AE was not debatable, rendering the rejection of the Section 154 application invalid. It held that since the assessee is in the business of plying, hiring, or leasing goods carriage vehicles and owns less than 10 such vehicles, the income should prima facie be computed under Section 44AE. The case is remanded to the AO to re-examine if the assessee satisfies all conditions under Section 44AE and to recompute the income accordingly.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to furnish the required details. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The tribunal upheld the addition under Section 69A, finding the assessee's explanation unconvincing. It noted inconsistencies in the alleged lease agreement, the absence of documentary evidence, and the utilization of funds by the assessee for its own payments, concluding that the assessee failed to satisfactorily substantiate the source of the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue was required to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard before making adjustments under Section 143(1)(a). A communication under Section 139(9) for defects in the return does not satisfy this requirement.