Loading ITAT cases…
455 orders · Page 7 of 10
The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in invoking section 263 as the AO had considered and verified the issues raised, including cash deposits from student fees and sale of land proceeds. The CIT's notice contained incorrect figures regarding interest income, and the AO had taken a possible view supported by evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A for AY 2011-12, following a previous decision. However, it deleted additions related to lease rent for both years, citing High Court and Tribunal precedents. Disallowances for membership fees were also deleted. For AY 2012-13, a disallowance under Section 14A for book profit was deleted, but a provision for leave travel assistance was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate his claim for exemption under Section 54 of the Act regarding further construction on the purchased plot.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A for AY 2011-12, following a previous decision. However, it deleted additions related to lease rent for both years, citing High Court and Tribunal precedents. Disallowances for membership fees were also deleted. For AY 2012-13, a disallowance under Section 14A for book profit was deleted, but a provision for leave travel assistance was upheld.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A for AY 2011-12, following a previous decision. However, it deleted additions related to lease rent for both years, citing High Court and Tribunal precedents. Disallowances for membership fees were also deleted. For AY 2012-13, a disallowance under Section 14A for book profit was deleted, but a provision for leave travel assistance was upheld.
The Tribunal acknowledged the extraordinary circumstances and humanitarian considerations presented by the assessee. It held that the non-diligent conduct was not wilful and granted an opportunity for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that in the brother's case, the AO had accepted an FMV of Rs. 95,28,000/- as on 01.04.1981, and that the Tribunal had previously restored the issue for de novo assessment. Considering the assessee's 50% share and the brother's case, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the capital gain using Rs. 95,28,000/- as the FMV.
The Tribunal acknowledged the exceptional circumstances and humanitarian considerations presented by the assessee. It was held that the non-diligent conduct was not wilful, and an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid and void-ab-initio due to a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice under Section 143(2) on the same day the return was filed in response to the Section 148 notice. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were set aside for fresh assessment, the penalty imposed on those additions could not be sustained at this stage. The Assessing Officer was permitted to initiate penalty proceedings after passing a fresh assessment order.
The Tribunal held that a draft assessment order cannot be validated as a final assessment order through a subsequent corrigendum, especially when issued beyond the limitation period. Since no valid final assessment order was passed within the stipulated time, the assessment was deemed null and void.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was illegal and bad in law because the reasons for reopening were recorded after the notice was issued, and the approval obtained under Section 151 was mechanical and without application of mind.
The Tribunal held that no penalty can be levied when the addition is made solely by changing the accounting method, especially when the quantum addition itself was deleted by the appellate authorities. The penalty was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice due to the assessee's illness and the death of their counsel, ensuring a proper opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking and ex parte order, dismissing the appeal without proper opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking and ex parte order, dismissing the appeal without proper adjudication. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the Board's instructions regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the issues ex parte without sufficient opportunity of hearing, which was contrary to law. Therefore, the impugned order was cancelled and the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that expenditure on ordinary dunnage, due to its single-year life expectancy, is revenue expenditure. It also held that the license fee paid to Indian Railways qualifies as an asset for claiming depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking and ex-parte order, which was contrary to law. The impugned orders were cancelled, and the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking and ex parte order, dismissing the appeal without proper opportunity for the assessee. The impugned order was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking and ex-parte order, which was contrary to law. The impugned orders were cancelled, and the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking and ex parte order, dismissing the appeal without proper adjudication. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the issues were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for additions under Section 153A, there must be a nexus with the seized material. Since no incriminating material pertaining to the Section 14A addition was found during the search, the addition could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the Board's instructions regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the issues in dispute require thorough consideration at the CIT(A)'s level.
The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as it was filed against the Board's instructions regarding monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was defective as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This defect vitiated the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction to levy the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law because the approving authorities (CIT and ACIT) had given their approval in a mechanical manner without applying their mind, as per Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments. Consequently, the addition on merit was not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking and ex parte order, dismissing the appeal in limini, which was contrary to law. The impugned order was cancelled, and the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal had previously quashed the order passed by the PCIT under section 263. Therefore, the subsequent assessment made in compliance with the section 263 order was considered void-ab-initio and annulled by the CIT(A). The ITAT found no illegality or irregularity in the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that assessments already completed before the search can only be interfered with under Section 153A if incriminating material was unearthed during the search. Since no such material was found, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was deemed not maintainable because the tax effect was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 2,74,00,000/- made on account of unsecured loans from eleven creditors, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of providing value education and sports coaching fall within the ambit of 'education' and are not trade or business. Therefore, the proviso to section 2(15) is not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was unjustified as all necessary details were available to the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the non-submission of the audited statement with the return was a technical default and not a failure to disclose material facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce relevant material to substantiate the claim for interest on borrowed capital despite opportunities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2010-11 and restored both appeals to the file of the AO. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on the building cost when there is no segregation of land and building value in the composite purchase price. The assessee's claim was found to be covered by previous decisions.
The Tribunal held that the reasons cited by the CIT(E) for rejecting the registration were irrelevant to the criteria for granting registration under Section 12A/12AA. The Tribunal found no material to support the CIT(E)'s conclusion that the assessee failed to meet the requirements.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants by providing PAN details, bank statements, audited financial statements, and income-tax acknowledgments. The AO failed to disprove the materials placed before him.
The Tribunal held that the business is considered set up only when the company is ready to commence operations. Since the IRDA license was granted in February 2012, the business was deemed set up at that point, not earlier when infrastructure was in place.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants by providing PAN details, bank statements, audited financial statements, and income-tax acknowledgments. The AO failed to disprove the materials placed before him.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which applies to pending appeals, renders the Revenue's appeal non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was time-barred due to the delay in filing and the absence of any application for condonation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the Assessing Officer did not apply an independent mind and failed to disclose specific details in the reasons recorded. Furthermore, the sanction granted for reopening was invalid due to a lack of application of mind by the approving authorities.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) on a specific date to present their case.