Loading ITAT cases…
339 orders · Page 1 of 7
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's senior citizen status and the unfortunate demise of his son as reasonable causes. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee could not respond to notices due to these circumstances. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeals for both AY 2013-14 and AY 2017-18 were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings completed after the death of the assessee without issuing notice to the legal representative are not valid. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Shini Shajan vs. PCIT.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied TDS credit because the deductor's failure to remit the tax does not affect the assessee's right to claim credit. Section 205 of the Act bars direct demand from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct an independent examination of the donations to ascertain if they were capitation fees. The CIT(A) also erred by merely following a previous High Court judgment that was under stay by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the AO should have called for a remand report and given the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from an incorrect authority, as it was beyond three years from the end of the assessment year and required approval from a higher authority as per Section 151(ii). Consequently, the assessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was due to reasonable cause, considering the circumstances of the legal heir. The penalty imposed under Section 271B was deleted as it was a technical and venial breach without any loss to the exchequer, especially since the additions made in the assessment order were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct an independent examination of the donations to ascertain if they were capitation fees. The CIT(A) also erred by merely following a previous High Court judgment that was under stay by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the AO should have called for a remand report and given the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that while the peak credit theory is applicable in certain cases for estimating unexplained income, it requires a certain level of disclosure and evidence of fund rotation, which was absent here as the accounts were not disclosed. However, considering the facts, the Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to the peak credit amount.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct an independent examination of the donations to ascertain if they were capitation fees. The CIT(A) also erred by merely following a previous High Court judgment that was under stay by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the AO should have called for a remand report and given the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay as there was sufficient cause for the belated filing, attributing no latches to the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the First Appellate Authority's order was ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's senior citizen status and the unfortunate demise of his son as reasonable causes. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee could not respond to notices due to these circumstances. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeals for both AY 2013-14 and AY 2017-18 were remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that a new clause (iv) was inserted into the first proviso to Section 80G(5) effective from 01.10.2024, which allows trusts to apply for approval at any time after commencing activities. Since the CIT(E) rejected the application after this amendment took effect, the rejection was deemed incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C after April 1, 2021, is invalid, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Consequently, all proceedings completed under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C after April 1, 2021, is invalid, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Consequently, all proceedings completed under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application should have been examined in light of clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act, which allows application at any time after commencement of activities. This provision was introduced by the Finance Act, 2024, effective from 01.10.2024.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not issued in accordance with the e-assessment scheme of 2022, as it was issued by the JAO instead of the NFAC. This was in line with various High Court judgments and a Supreme Court dismissal of an SLP.
The Tribunal held that the TPO had not correctly understood the directions of the DRP while recomputing the ALP. The DRP had directed the exclusion of the electricity tax component from the rate per unit. However, the Tribunal noted that the rate of electricity tax is different in Tamil Nadu (5%) and Karnataka (6%). Therefore, there was merit in the assessee's submission that the TPO was incorrect in reducing the electricity tax from the average rate per unit. Instead, the applicable electricity tax should have been reduced from the respective state-wise landed cost. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the TPO to re-compute the ALP by reducing the applicable electricity tax component from the state-wise landed cost. The TPO was directed to consider the workings submitted by the assessee and provide relief accordingly, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This direction was made applicable mutatis mutandis to AY 2018-19 as well. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C after April 1, 2021, is invalid, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Consequently, all proceedings completed under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's lack of computer knowledge and her mother's ill-health. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay. Furthermore, since the additions were made without considering the merits, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C after April 1, 2021, is invalid, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Consequently, all proceedings completed under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) denied registration on the grounds that the assessee failed to furnish documents and did not allow adjournment as the application was time-barred. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the credit card payments are debits and cannot be taxed as unexplained cash credits under Section 68, which applies only to sums credited in books. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not properly examine the evidence furnished by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to admit additional evidence based on a strict interpretation of Rule 46A, without fully considering the assessee's submissions regarding health conditions and the lack of opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity for natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect mention of the sub-clause was a curable defect and not an illegality. Furthermore, considering the amendment to Section 80G(5) by the Finance Act, 2024, which came into effect from 01.10.2024, the application filed on 06.03.2025 should be examined under clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 194 days in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. The Tribunal observed that notices from the CIT(A) were sent to an incorrect email address. To provide an opportunity for a fair hearing, the appeal was remitted back to the AO for consideration on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) denied registration on the grounds that the assessee failed to furnish documents and did not allow adjournment as the application was time-barred. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to medical ailments and reliance on auditors, constituting a reasonable cause. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and remitted the appeal back to the AO for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 issued by the JAO was invalid as per CBDT notification and jurisdictional High Court rulings. Consequently, the penalty order stemming from this invalid notice was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the TPO had not correctly understood the directions of the DRP while recomputing the ALP. The DRP had directed the exclusion of the electricity tax component from the rate per unit. However, the Tribunal noted that the rate of electricity tax is different in Tamil Nadu (5%) and Karnataka (6%). Therefore, there was merit in the assessee's submission that the TPO was incorrect in reducing the electricity tax from the average rate per unit. Instead, the applicable electricity tax should have been reduced from the respective state-wise landed cost. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the TPO to re-compute the ALP by reducing the applicable electricity tax component from the state-wise landed cost. The TPO was directed to consider the workings submitted by the assessee and provide relief accordingly, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This direction was made applicable mutatis mutandis to AY 2018-19 as well. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was invalid as it was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year without obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority as prescribed under section 151(ii). Consequently, the assessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C after April 1, 2021, is invalid, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Consequently, all proceedings completed under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's illiteracy, health issues, and reliance on a negligent tax consultant. The Tribunal remitted the quantum appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration and allowed the penalty appeal as consequential.
The Tribunal noted that procedural irregularities, especially those that are curable and do not defeat substantive rights, should not lead to the rejection of an application. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that rules of procedure are meant to facilitate justice and not to obstruct it. The inadvertent error in selecting the sub-clause should not penalize the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 384 days in filing the appeal before it, citing reasonable cause, and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without considering the reasons submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was sent back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including ITRs, financial statements, and cash books, demonstrating that the SBN deposits were from genuine sundry debtors and current year earnings. The AO and CIT(A) erred in not accepting the explanation and making additions.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee missed the FAA notices due to an error in filing Form 35 (TAN instead of PAN). The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the FAA.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee is a senior citizen and for the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the A.O. for fresh consideration of the impugned issue after calling for relevant details.
The assessee had also filed a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeal. In light of the above, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the assessee's illiteracy, health issues, and reliance on a negligent tax consultant. The Tribunal remitted the quantum appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration and allowed the penalty appeal as consequential.
The Tribunal noted that procedural irregularities, especially those that are curable and do not defeat substantive rights, should not lead to the rejection of an application. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that rules of procedure are meant to facilitate justice and not to obstruct it. The inadvertent error in selecting the sub-clause should not penalize the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, required approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) as per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Since the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT), the notice was invalid, and consequently, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Issue 1 & 2: The judgment does not record any specific decision or discussion on the grounds related to the assessment order being time-barred or the jurisdiction of the JAO. These grounds appear to have been implicitly not pressed or not adjudicated upon. Issue 3 (Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i)): The Tribunal did not provide a specific finding or reasoning on this issue in the provided extract. The grounds of appeal related to this issue were listed, but the operative part of the judgment concerning this specific disallowance is not detailed in the provided text. Issue 4 (TP adjustment on receivables): The Tribunal allowed the appeal on this ground. Citing decisions in Temenos India Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT and Trimble Information Technologies India Private Limited, the Tribunal held that for a debt-free company, a TP adjustment for notional interest on overdue receivables is unwarranted. The Tribunal relied on the principle that if the assessee is debt-free, it is not justifiable to presume borrowed funds were used to provide facilities to AEs, and no separate adjustment for interest on receivables is warranted. The Tribunal directed the TPO to delete the impugned transfer pricing adjustment of ₹18,67,077. This ground was allowed. Operative Direction: The TP adjustment of ₹18,67,077 was deleted. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is restricted to the actual provision made in the books of account, subject to the statutory ceiling. The deduction cannot exceed the amount actually provided for, even if the statutory limit is higher.
The Tribunal held that once a liquidation order is passed, no legal proceedings can be instituted against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order passed after the liquidation was void and non-enforceable.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea of double taxation regarding the Rs. 2.84 crores deposit. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) to be decided along with Mr. Mukeshkumar's appeal to avoid double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in adding the value of shares as income. It found that the supplemental deed clarified that beneficiaries were only relatives, making the transfer exempt under Section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal also allowed the appeal regarding an advance tax payment of Rs. 12 crores, holding it was a repayable liability and not income.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the JAO was not in accordance with the e-assessment scheme and was therefore invalid. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned notice and consequential orders.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is restricted to the actual provision made in the books of account, subject to the statutory ceiling. The statutory percentages are upper limits, not an automatic entitlement regardless of the book provision.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C) is automatic when income is assessed under section 148, as it is linked to the original return. The argument that no penalty is leviable for income assessed on an estimate basis was deemed inapplicable in cases assessed under section 148.
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C) is automatic when income is assessed under section 148, as it is linked to the original return. The argument that no penalty is leviable for income assessed on an estimate basis was deemed inapplicable in cases assessed under section 148.