Loading ITAT cases…
391 orders · Page 7 of 8
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years, the approval should have been obtained from the PCCIT as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. The approval from the PCIT was invalid, making the reopening notice and subsequent assessment bad in law.
The Tribunal dismissed the first appeal due to the unexplained and excessive delay, refusing to condone it. For the second appeal, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer to give effect to the Tribunal's order were indeed time-barred as they were passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Act. Consequently, these orders were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer to give effect to the Tribunal's order were indeed time-barred as they were passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Act. Consequently, these orders were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer to give effect to the Tribunal's order were indeed time-barred as they were passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Act. Consequently, these orders were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer to give effect to the Tribunal's order were indeed time-barred as they were passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Act. Consequently, these orders were deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest was not sustainable as the assessee demonstrated commercial expediency in advancing funds to a group company. The availability of interest-free funds and internal cash generation, coupled with the lack of direct nexus established by the Revenue, supported the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was not substantiated. The company's active status on the MCA portal and substantial financial transactions indicated it was not dysfunctional. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of a booking is a process, not concluded upon mere receipt of a request. The reversal of income should be recognized in the year the cancellation is finally accepted, aligning with the assessee's accounting method. The addition under Section 68 for revenue share with a land owner was also deleted as it was a documented business liability.
The Tribunal held that the notices were issued during the period considered by the Supreme Court for exclusion due to the pandemic. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance, and the penalty should not have been levied.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly examined the assessee's activities and had relied on the rejection of an 80G application which was itself remitted for fresh consideration. The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 2(15) and whether activities constitute education should be examined at the assessment stage.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of a booking is a process, not concluded by a mere request letter. The assessee rightly recognized the reversal of income in the year of final cancellation acceptance, aligning with its accounting method.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of a booking is a process, not concluded upon mere receipt of a request. The reversal of income should be recognized in the year the cancellation is finally accepted, aligning with the assessee's accounting method. The addition under Section 68 for revenue share with a land owner was also deleted as it was a documented business liability.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, citing natural justice. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to provide necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was not substantiated. The company's active status on the MCA portal and substantial financial transactions indicated it was not dysfunctional. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
The Tribunal, noting the non-compliance by the assessee, decided to grant one more opportunity. The issue of registration was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the AO. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the documents were relevant and the assessee should have been given an adequate opportunity to furnish them. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the applications, granting the assessee one more opportunity to comply with the requirements due to the ex parte nature of the rejection and the assessee's claim of pursuing philanthropic activities.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including affidavits and bank statements, for substantial justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of these evidences and to obtain a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to the ex-parte assessment and the need for factual verification of investment sources and agricultural income. The assessee was directed to provide evidence and pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of natural justice, remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the applications, granting the assessee one more opportunity to comply with the requirements due to the ex parte nature of the rejection and the assessee's claim of pursuing philanthropic activities.
The Tribunal held that the transactions between the father and sons were genuine family transactions for business exigencies. The assessee had reasonable cause for the cash transactions, thus the penalty under Section 271D could not be sustained.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case and that the CIT(A) had passed a hurried order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and granted the assessee one more opportunity to submit relevant documents.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's belief in the finality of the settlement to be bona fide. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication on merits.
For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the appeal, holding that the adjustment u/s 143(1) was not justified as the issue was debatable at that time. For AY 2021-22, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was rendered before the intimation was issued.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's reliance on their consultant and lack of awareness of tax proceedings. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal, considering the violation of natural justice by the CIT(A) and the assessee's plea for another opportunity, decided to remit the appeal back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to call for necessary details and a remand report to decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee not at fault due to non-service of orders. The ex parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, remanding the appeals back to the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to file the necessary documents, and the CIT(A) was instructed to adjudicate the appeals on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148A(b) was invalid as it failed to provide the mandatory seven clear days for the assessee to respond. Consequently, the subsequent notice under Section 148 and the assessment order were also deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient material to prove the cash sales were bogus or that the deposits represented unexplained money. For the hotel division, the Tribunal found discrepancies in figures and remanded the matter for fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's reliance on their consultant and lack of awareness of tax proceedings. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice.
For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the appeal, holding that the adjustment u/s 143(1) was not justified as the issue was debatable at that time. For AY 2021-22, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was rendered before the intimation was issued.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on July 22, 2022, for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. This was based on the amended provisions of Section 149 and the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajiv Bansal and other cases, which clarified that such notices for AY 2015-16 issued after March 31, 2022, are invalid.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of a transitional application for fresh registration does not cancel the subsisting original registration under Section 12AA. The Tribunal also noted that the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 2020 were retrospectively omitted by TOLA, impacting the basis of the rejection.
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's belief in the finality of the settlement to be bona fide. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient material to prove the cash sales were bogus or that the deposits represented unexplained money. For the hotel division, the Tribunal found discrepancies in figures and remanded the matter for fresh examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the transactions between the father and sons were genuine family transactions for business exigencies. The assessee had reasonable cause for the cash transactions, thus the penalty under Section 271D could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the corporate guarantee issued by an entity on behalf of its Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction, as explained in Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with retrospective effect from April 1, 2002. This was supported by the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. However, the Tribunal found that the TPO erred in comparing guarantee fees of commercial banks with corporate guarantees issued by a holding company for its AE subsidiary when computing the Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Tribunal, following its co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case and the Bombay High Court's reasoning, directed the TPO/AO to recompute the corporate guarantee fee at 0.5% of the total corporate guarantee given to its AEs. The Tribunal noted that the same guarantee was continued for the year under consideration and the revenue did not controvert the submissions or bring new materials. Ground No. 2 was dismissed as not pressed. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the time-bar issue raised in Ground No. 1 and 2.1-2.4, as Ground No. 2 was not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish that the income had accrued to the assessee during FY 2019-20. The date of incorporation, the timing of invoicing in FY 2020-21, and the opening of the bank account in April 2020 supported the assessee's claim that the income pertained to AY 2021-22.
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Co. v. CIT, held that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee not at fault due to non-service of orders. The ex parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, remanding the appeals back to the CIT(A) for adjudication. The assessee was directed to file the necessary documents without fail.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had promptly brought the erroneous claims in the revised return to the notice of the AO and even returned the refund received. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to accept the original return filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to accept the assessee's original return and recompute the income accordingly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition and the accountant's abrupt resignation. The case was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present necessary details.
The Tribunal found that there might have been a violation of natural justice and conflicting assertions regarding the reply to the notice. Therefore, the assessee was given another opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16 on April 6, 2022, was barred by limitation. Consequently, all subsequent actions were deemed non-est in the eyes of the law.