Loading ITAT cases…
420 orders · Page 1 of 9
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had not fully utilized opportunities at lower levels, in the interest of justice, another opportunity should be granted. The matter was restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo verification and assessment, with directions to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed ex-parte and the CIT(A) also decided the issue without a hearing on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing proper opportunities of being heard to the assessee, who is directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the genuineness of the cash sales by providing evidence of corresponding purchases, stock reduction, and declaration of profits. The addition under Section 68 was deemed unsustainable as it amounted to taxing the same income twice.
The Tribunal noted that its Co-ordinate Bench had already quashed the revisional order under Section 263. As a result, the assessment order, being a consequence of the quashed revisional order, and all subsequent appellate proceedings, including the current appeal, were rendered infructuous and non-est by operation of law.
The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10B was directory in nature and not mandatory. It relied on various judicial precedents stating that substantial compliance is sufficient and the benefit of exemption should not be denied on technicalities, especially when the report was available.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable and eligible for exemption under Sections 11 & 12, following jurisdictional High Court rulings. Issues related to exemption and certain additions were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal observed that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) to pass a fresh order after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) to pass a fresh order after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It ruled that for an NBFC, whose primary activities include money lending and investment, the interest income derived from these activities constitutes business income, not 'income from other sources'. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was not sustainable as the assessee had furnished necessary documents to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share subscribers. The Tribunal distinguished the relied-upon judgments as factually different.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable and eligible for exemption under Sections 11 & 12, following jurisdictional High Court rulings. Issues related to exemption and certain additions were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the assessment was ex-parte and the CIT(A) decided without hearing the assessee. To ensure justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, granting the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, with a direction for cooperation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO had rejected the books of accounts without cogent reasons and that the assessee had explained the fall in profit margins. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions related to creditors and expenses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable and eligible for exemption under Sections 11 & 12, following jurisdictional High Court rulings. Issues related to exemption and certain additions were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries to verify the genuineness of the expenses and that the assessee had provided details of deductees. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court ruling in CIT-V v. M/S RADHIKA CREATION, stating that Section 69C pertains to the source of expenditure, not its authenticity, and thus the addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de-novo consideration, directing the AO to provide reasonable opportunities to the assessee.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not produce all sales invoices/memos to the AO for verification. To provide a reasonable opportunity, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de-novo consideration, including verification of sales and purchases, and to provide the assessee a fair hearing.
The tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Relcom, held that the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit. It ruled that credit should not be denied merely because the corresponding income was declared by a sister concern, provided the sister concern has not claimed the same TDS. The AO was directed to allow the credit after verification.
The tribunal condoned the 66-day delay in filing the appeal, noting that the object of law is to ensure complete justice. Without discussing the merits, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) with a direction to provide the assessee with a meaningful and effective opportunity of being heard and to decide the matter afresh.
The tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution and held that justice required providing a proper opportunity of hearing. It remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee an effective and sufficient opportunity of being heard, with the expectation that the assessee would cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The tribunal held that for the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter decide the matter afresh according to law.
The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to undisclosed income from agricultural land sale, as the land was not a capital asset and additions based on uncross-examined third-party statements were invalid. For the assessee's appeal challenging the unexplained investment of Rs. 1,07,00,000/-, the tribunal accepted the principle of telescoping of prior additions against this investment and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification and re-adjudication.
The tribunal found no evidence of proper service of notices under Section 142(1) on the assessee. It noted that the assessee had changed her address and updated it on the NSDL portal, filing returns from the new address for subsequent years. The tribunal concluded that without proper service of notice, deliberate non-compliance cannot be presumed, rendering the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) unsustainable and deleted it.
Following its previous decision for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80IC for all assessment years. The reopening of assessment for AY 2010-11 under section 147 was also found invalid by the first appellate authority, being based on a mere change of opinion. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowances.
Following its previous decision for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80IC for all assessment years. The reopening of assessment for AY 2010-11 under section 147 was also found invalid by the first appellate authority, being based on a mere change of opinion. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowances.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the NCLT's moratorium, decided to consign the revenue's appeal to records. It granted liberty to the revenue to revive the appeal after the NCLT proceedings are completed, as the continuation of proceedings against the respondent is prohibited.
Following its previous decision for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80IC for all assessment years. The reopening of assessment for AY 2010-11 under section 147 was also found invalid by the first appellate authority, being based on a mere change of opinion. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowances.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Considering the principles of natural justice and the need for a fair opportunity, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the Ld. Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-adjudicate the case afresh after examining all relevant materials and providing the assessee with an effective opportunity of being heard, with the expectation of cooperation from the assessee.
The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition related to undisclosed income from agricultural land sale, as the land was not a capital asset and additions based on uncross-examined third-party statements were invalid. For the assessee's appeal challenging the unexplained investment of Rs. 1,07,00,000/-, the tribunal accepted the principle of telescoping of prior additions against this investment and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification and re-adjudication.
Following its previous decision for AY 2014-15, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80IC for all assessment years. The reopening of assessment for AY 2010-11 under section 147 was also found invalid by the first appellate authority, being based on a mere change of opinion. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowances.
The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the exemption claimed by the assessee (Section 10(21)) and the sections considered by the CIT(A) (10(23A), 12A, 10(23C)(iiiad)). It also observed that the assessee's Section 12A registration was effective from 19.06.2020, making it potentially inapplicable to A.Y. 2019-20. Finding the CIT(A)'s order cryptic and non-speaking, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order after considering all relevant facts and providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the issue of ESI/PF payment is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in `Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-I`. The Supreme Court ruled that employers must deposit employee contributions towards EPF/ESI on or before the due date for deduction to be allowed, and such amounts, deemed income under Section 2(24)(x), cannot be deducted if paid beyond the due date. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance.
Given that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was remanded by the ITAT, the tribunal held that the penalty order also warrants reconsideration. Consequently, the penalty order is remanded to the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure for levy of penalty as per Section 275(1A).
The Tribunal found that the assessee made every possible attempt to make timely payments but was prevented by technical glitches in the Provident Fund Department's online platform. Applying the "doctrine of impossibility," the Tribunal concluded that the assessee could not be penalized for system failures beyond their control. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to cancel the disallowance of Rs.16,59,659/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a tax resident of the USA and is entitled to the benefits of the India-USA DTAA. It also held that the income from domain name registration, web hosting, and similar services does not qualify as 'fees for included services' as it does not 'make available' any technology to the recipient.
The ITAT, considering the assessee's counsel's plea of the assessee's ailments and the Revenue's non-objection, decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to pass a fresh order after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of accounting for membership fees, which was accepted by the Revenue in subsequent years, was valid. It also ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted in the absence of exempt income. Ad-hoc disallowances without rationale were also deemed impermissible.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, as the statutory notices were issued with a defective/old PAN despite the assessee regularly filing returns with a new PAN and having informed the AO of the defective PAN. Citing Section 273B, the Tribunal concluded that such circumstances constitute a 'reasonable cause' for failure to comply. Consequently, the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(b) were deleted.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issues on merits and pass a de-novo order. The AO was also granted the liberty to initiate penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act for the assessee's non-compliance with notices.
The Tribunal found that the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was not barred by limitation, referencing a Supreme Court order that extended limitation periods. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on this ground. The case was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after re-examining the limitation issue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT-I, held that employers are required to deposit employees' contributions to EPF/ESI on or before the due dates specified in the relevant welfare enactments. Failure to do so means these amounts cannot be allowed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, irrespective of whether the payment was made before the Income Tax Return filing date. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal found no change in the factual matrix and legal proposition compared to the precedent. It held that the addition made on account of disallowance of expenses was beyond the purview of limited scrutiny, lacking prior PCIT approval for conversion to complete scrutiny. Consequently, the addition by the AO was directed to be deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the land sold was rural agricultural land, not a capital asset under section 2(14), and therefore, the capital gain was non-taxable. It also found that the assessee had adequately explained the advance received for land sale to the CIT(A) with supporting evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the co-terminus powers of the CIT(A) with the AO, allowing examination of evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, especially considering the passing of the assessee's legal consultant. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of accounting for membership fees, which was accepted by the Revenue in subsequent years, was valid. It also ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted in the absence of exempt income. Ad-hoc disallowances without rationale were also deemed impermissible.
The Tribunal reviewed the assessee's opening cash balance, cash withdrawals, and cash sales, noting that the total cash available (Rs. 81,38,920/-) exceeded the cash deposits made (Rs. 66,36,000/-). It concluded that the cash deposits could be adequately explained by these financial movements and, therefore, could not be considered unexplained income of the assessee for the year under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the capital gains were not taxable as the transfer of shares was not complete due to the buyer's failure to pay the full consideration, and the transaction was subsequently cancelled. The disallowance of director's remuneration was sustained as the company was aware of the rejection of its application for permission to pay excess remuneration.
The tribunal ruled that the interest income from ICDs and FDs should be treated as 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession' as the assessee's Memorandum of Association explicitly included leasing and finance, and this classification was consistently accepted in other assessment years. The tribunal also directed the AO to allow the amortization of preliminary expenses, emphasizing the rule of consistency given their acceptance in prior and subsequent years. Both grounds of appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court's Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, found that the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed within the extended limitation period. Consequently, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.