Loading ITAT cases…
92 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to a lack of application of mind and mechanical approval for multiple assessment years. Consequently, the assessment orders based on these approvals were quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's ownership of 40 acres of agricultural land and income from tractor plowing. Considering these facts, the Tribunal decided to grant partial relief. For AY 2014-15, 50% of the addition (Rs.3,00,000) was treated as agriculture receipts, reducing the addition to Rs.5,00,000. For AY 2015-16, 50% of the addition (Rs.1,50,000) was treated as agriculture receipts, reducing the addition to Rs.1,28,000.
The Tribunal held that taxing the entire gross receipts of a registered charitable trust as income under section 143(1) is not permissible. Adjustments under section 143(1) are limited, and treating the application of income as disallowable under this section is erroneous and unsustainable. Consequently, the intimation issued by the CPC was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition for cash deposited during demonetization was not justified as the assessee had sufficient cash balance and the bank confirmed no demonetized currency was deposited. For estimating income, the Tribunal referred to a prior year's estimation of 0.39% but directed estimation at 1% for the current year to avoid affecting assessed income below returned income.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had questioned the investments in the new business and estimated an addition. However, the assessee's bank statements showed significant cash withdrawals that could cover the investments. The Sr. DR conceded that no fresh assets were found.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action of directing the AO to assess the amount under a different section, when the AO had already taken a view and applied a particular section, amounted to a change of opinion, which is not permissible under Section 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order passed u/s 263 was unsustainable.
The Assessing Officer (AO) applied the guideline values without referring the matter to the Valuation Officer and treated the difference as unexplained income. The Tribunal noted that the claim for valuation by the Director of Valuation (DVO) was raised before the Tribunal instead of the AO, which was an error.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's Section 12A registration obtained before the assessment orders. However, to verify if the assessee's activities during the assessment years were identical to those for which registration was granted, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer (AO).
The court held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the four-year period, requiring approval from the Ld. PCIT. However, the provided approval lacked a signature, date, and seal, and was not in the prescribed proforma. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously indicated an inability to produce documents and had not complied with notices from the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the AO for readjudication, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was liable to be deleted as the issue of purchases was not the reason for limited scrutiny and the AO had not obtained prior approval from the Pr.CIT. Consequently, the addition and the related penalty were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that Section 44AD of the Act was not applicable due to the assessee's turnover exceeding Rs. 2 crores. Furthermore, the AO failed to consider the assessee's income from earlier and subsequent years, as required by law. In the interest of justice, the appeals were to be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 184 days and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not produce documents and did not comply with notices. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the AO for readjudication after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the adjustments made in the intimation u/s. 143(1) were not permissible as there was no arithmetical error. Even if registration u/s. 12AA was not in place, expenses claimed as application of income could not be disallowed u/s. 143(1). The intimation was considered bad in law.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches, particularly in the cases of Ridhi Bagaria and Deepansu Mohapatra. The Tribunal held that the assessee was an investor and not a trader in shares, and the gain from the sale of shares was eligible for exemption under Section 10(38).
The Tribunal considered that the assessee had no other source of income apart from agriculture and that a subsequent assessment year's agricultural income was accepted. The fact that the money was returned through Eastern Valley Agro Pvt. Ltd. was not disproved by the revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the reasons provided were plausible and the Sr. DR did not object. The order of the PCIT passed under Section 263 was set aside, and the issues were restored for readjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that once the books of accounts are rejected, no addition can be made for cash deposits out of disclosed sales. However, regarding the estimation of income, the AO was directed to estimate it at 2.2% of the total turnover, considering the profit margin of FMCG dealers.
The Tribunal held that once the items were sold, the assessee could not demand non-demonetized currency and would be at a loss if she did not collect the money. Since the collected money was from sale proceeds and part of the turnover, it could not be treated as undisclosed income.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the assessee was non-cooperative. In the interest of justice, given the small issue, the Tribunal held that an estimated income of 10% of the addition of Rs. 21,37,999 could be made.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 784 days and admitted the appeal for hearing. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the issue is covered by the decisions in the cases of Ridhi Bagaria and Deepansu Mohapatra. The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(38) is valid, as the assessee is an investor and not a trader in shares. The revenue's arguments regarding the non-granting of cross-examination were not sustainable as no statements or reports were relied upon by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 372 days. It held that the penalty under section 271B was not sustainable as the AO should have initiated penalty under section 271A for non-maintenance of books. Furthermore, the penalty order was barred by limitation, having been passed on 16.03.2022, beyond the extended deadline of 30.09.2021 (due to COVID-19 extensions).
The Tribunal noted that the revenue failed to show any error in the order of the Addl./JCIT(A). The directions given by the Addl./JCIT(A) regarding the condonation of delay in filing Form 10B were upheld.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's Section 12A registration obtained before the assessment orders. However, to verify if the assessee's activities during the assessment years were identical to those for which registration was granted, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer (AO).
The Tribunal noted that the revenue failed to show any error in the order of the Addl./JCIT(A). The directions given by the Addl./JCIT(A) regarding the condonation of delay in filing Form 10B were upheld.
The Tribunal noted that Section 44AD of the Act was not applicable due to the assessee's turnover exceeding Rs. 2 crores. Furthermore, the AO failed to consider the assessee's income from earlier and subsequent years, as required by law. In the interest of justice, the appeals were to be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The reconciliation statement showed that the difference in turnover was due to GST. The assessee had reduced GST from the turnover in the 26AS form. The AO is directed to grant the benefit of TDS as claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had shown inability to produce documents earlier and had not complied with notices from the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing, subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- cost to the Tribunal Bar Association.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the disclosure statement, which was signed by the director and chartered accountant after the search. The Tribunal found that categorical disclosures were made for both assessment years based on incriminating material, and the assessee could not explain the expenditure in its entirety.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the NFAC on 28.03.2022 was indeed prior to the date of the notification that made the NFAC effective. Therefore, the order was passed without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was liable to be deleted as the issue of purchases was not the reason for limited scrutiny and the AO had not obtained prior approval from the Pr.CIT. Consequently, the addition and the related penalty were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the VAT returns were considered for stock shortage and for Section 14A, the amendment's prospective nature was correctly applied, citing a Calcutta High Court decision and a dismissed SLP.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and condoned it based on the assessee's affidavit and the Sr. DR's no objection. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO for verification of the typographical error. The AO is to examine the closing WDV and any new capital asset acquisition to determine if the WDV mentioned in the return was indeed a typographical error.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown inability to produce documents during assessment and did not comply with notices from CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal issues were restored to the AO for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and perused the disclosure statement, which was signed by the director and chartered accountant after the search. The Tribunal found that categorical disclosures were made for both assessment years based on incriminating material, and the assessee could not explain the expenditure in its entirety.
The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be reasonable and unintentional. Therefore, the delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted. The Tribunal also set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the delay of one day in filing Form 10B was due to a technical glitch and that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement, not a mandatory one. Therefore, the delay should be condoned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 83 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without looking into the merits of the case. The Tribunal found that while opportunities were given, the assessee failed to comply with notices, and to ensure justice and fair play, the issue needs to be remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had been granted registration under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act for the assessment years 2022-2023 to 2026-2027, rendering the appeals infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had been granted registration under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act for the assessment years 2022-2023 to 2026-2027, rendering the appeals infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessees had been granted registration under section 12AB(1)(b)(ii) of the Act for the assessment years 2022-2023 to 2026-2027, rendering the appeals infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were allowed to be withdrawn.