Loading ITAT cases…
373 orders · Page 8 of 8
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a Common Area Maintenance Agreement and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were non-est and deserved to be quashed as they were issued without quoting the DIN in the body of the order, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made in an assessment framed under Section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. Following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that a reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 50C is not justified when the sale consideration is equal to or more than the circle rate. Therefore, the addition made to the long-term capital gains was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it went to the root of the issue. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271E for a particular assessment year can only be initiated while the Assessing Officer is seized of the assessment proceedings for that relevant year, not based on findings from a subsequent year's assessment. The penalty was therefore not legally tenable.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the AO was directed to restrict the disallowance to the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal observed that the letter from Asian TV Network Pvt. Ltd. was dated on the same day as the assessment completion and was not put to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for further inquiries, including recording the statement of the Director of Asian TV Network Pvt. Ltd. and providing cross-examination to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that additions sustained by the CIT(A) were not sustainable as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal also noted that the procedure under section 153C was not followed for additions based on material found in other persons' cases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order rejecting the registration application. The assessee failed to provide crucial details regarding the trust's genuineness and objects, and did not furnish documentary evidence to counter the CIT's findings.
The Tribunal observed that the letter from Asian TV Network Pvt. Ltd. was dated on the same day as the assessment completion and was not put to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for further inquiries, including recording the statement of the Director of Asian TV Network Pvt. Ltd. and providing cross-examination to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not a shareholder in the impugned company. Following the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing and failed to verify the facts regarding joint ownership. The CIT(Appeals) also did not consider the assessee's contention of not being the sole owner. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, directing a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to present their case with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of the director's identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, and the Revenue's appeal lacked merit.
The Tribunal noted that the Settlement Commission had accepted the director's application and considered him responsible for the undisclosed income. Therefore, the additions made to the assessee's income needed a fresh look by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision which relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd., held that employee contributions to PF and ESI not deposited by the due date are disallowable. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim regarding the due date of deposit.
The Tribunal held that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for evidence. The AO failed to provide corroborative evidence beyond email communications to prove actual cash payments were made.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid as it lacked a Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and set aside because it was passed without a Document Identification Number (DIN), contrary to CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. This legal issue rendered other grounds academic.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. The AO's assessment order was not erroneous as he did not make additions beyond the scope of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The PCIT's revisionary order was set aside.
The tribunal held that the orders of the lower authorities were cryptic and lacked reasoning, thus being unsustainable. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's failure to comply with Section 44AB was apparent and no reasonable cause was provided. Ignorance of the law was not considered a valid excuse, and therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed.