Loading ITAT cases…
589 orders · Page 10 of 12
The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities found the assessee unresponsive to notices. Accepting the assessee's counsel's plea of non-receipt of notices, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, directing that adequate opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Relying on its previous decision in *Akshay Devendra Birari v. DCIT*, the Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10IE is directory, not mandatory. It directed the CPC to amend the intimation by considering the Form 10IE, as it was available at the time of processing, and restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh factual verification.
The Tribunal observed that neither party's contentions were entirely acceptable, noting that 60% of the deposits were already accepted as explained. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal confirmed a lump sum addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- only, providing relief of Rs. 20,21,600/- to the assessee. This decision is not to be treated as a precedent.
Considering the assessee's restaurant business where cash receipts are possible, the Tribunal reduced the addition to a lump sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, thereby providing relief of Rs. 20.50 lakh from the original addition. This estimation is not to be considered a precedent for other cases.
The tribunal observed that the assessee had not responded to notices issued by lower authorities. Accepting the assessee's contention about non-receipt of notices, the tribunal remanded the case back to the AO to decide the issues afresh after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the principal amount of the arbitral award represented business income arising from offshore supplies and was not taxable in India as there was no PE. The interest income was also considered business income and not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied heavily on the investigation report without independent inquiry or corroboration. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee was a grave error. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that proceedings under Section 153C cannot be sustained for completed assessment years if no incriminating material pertaining to those specific years is found during the search. Relying on the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that without such material, the assessments were void ab-initio and quashed.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that proceedings under Section 153C cannot be sustained for completed assessment years if no incriminating material pertaining to those specific years is found during the search. Relying on the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that without such material, the assessments were void ab-initio and quashed.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that proceedings under Section 153C cannot be sustained for completed assessment years if no incriminating material pertaining to those specific years is found during the search. Relying on the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that without such material, the assessments were void ab-initio and quashed.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay unsustainable in law, referring to the Supreme Court's decision in *Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation* (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC), which excluded the Covid-19 pandemic period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) for limitation purposes. Accordingly, the assessee's appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing the recently issued CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024. This circular mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect does not exceed the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 Lakhs, which was the case here (tax effect not exceeding Rs. 60 Lakhs). The Revenue was granted the liberty to seek restoration of its appeal if the aforesaid CBDT Circular was found inapplicable.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal, as the Revenue side did not oppose the request. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied heavily on the investigation report without independent inquiry or corroboration. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee was a grave error. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted.
The Tribunal found that both the assessment and first appellate proceedings concluded ex-parte, with the CIT(A) failing to consider the assessee's submissions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, granting the assessee a fair opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to frame points of determination or provide a detailed discussion as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh and appropriate adjudication, with the onus on the taxpayer to present relevant facts.
The Tribunal noted the distinction between the protective addition in the assessee's name and the substantive addition in Shri Naman Madan's name. It restored the Revenue's appeal back to the file of the learned CIT(A), directing the CIT(A) to decide both the protective and substantive appeals together, without making observations on merits, to determine where the addition should be confirmed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely due to non-prosecution, without deliberating on the merits or the crucial legal issue of limitation. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits, including the issue of limitation. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to first adjudicate on the limitation aspect and then on the exigibility of penalties.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while the broader issue of TDS on EDC was decided by the Delhi High Court (with an SLP pending), the assessee's primary dispute was purely on the factual quantum of EDC payments. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer (TDS) for a proper verification of the actual EDC charges paid by the assessee, allowing them a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had failed to address the merits of the assessee's grounds despite the assessee's non-cooperation in lower appellate proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with three opportunities to present its case.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(E) to decide the applications anew after providing the Assessee an opportunity of being heard. The Assessee was also directed to submit all required details and clarifications.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received for delayed possession of property is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The tribunal allowed the 8th ground for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to re-verify facts for allowing the depreciation claim, noting that the issue had been settled by the jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's favor for an earlier assessment year. The 9th ground regarding TDS credit was also restored to the Assessing Officer for factual reconciliation and verification.
The ITAT upheld the decision of the CIT(A), ruling that the addition of Rs.14,30,00,000/- could not be sustained. The Tribunal emphasized that for assessments made under section 153C, additions must be based on incriminating material unearthed during search operations. Since no such adverse incriminating material was found, the addition was deemed unsustainable, consistent with Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents.
The Tribunal, noting that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit and with the Ld. DR's agreement, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The appeal was deemed not maintainable in light of the latest CBDT Circular dated 17.09.2024.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made under section 14A. The Tribunal, citing Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents, affirmed that disallowance under section 14A must be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the Revenue had no objection. It also granted the assessee the liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if future circumstances warrant it for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned a 103-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to the assessee's illness and the death of their CA, finding no mala fide intention. Considering the assessee's non-appearance during both assessment and first appellate proceedings, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that taxing gross receipts is untenable and agreed with the CIT(A)'s approach of estimation. However, it reduced the estimated profit rate from 12.5% to 8% based on Section 44AD and comparable data.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, upon considering the evidence, found that the illness and hospitalization of the assessee's Chartered Accountant constituted a reasonable cause for the non-appearance before the revenue authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was not warranted and directed its deletion in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh, directing the AO to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The tribunal noted that the Ld. DR did not object to the proposition of providing the assessee with an opportunity.
The Tribunal held that taxing the entire gross receipts is untenable. It modified the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit from 12.5% to 8% of the gross receipts, aligning with the presumptive rate under Section 44AD.
The ITAT held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio. The tribunal found that the AO had already examined the issue of share allotment in the original assessment, and the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the share premium constituted escaped income or provide proper reasons for concluding that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the 80-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the NFAC did not provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication, directing the NFAC to afford a meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing and the assessee to cooperate by providing all necessary material and evidence.
The Tribunal, noting that while opportunities were provided, the assessee should be given another chance to be heard, decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of interest received under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as exempt income under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a debatable issue. Since the AO had conducted proper enquiries and adopted a plausible view based on judicial precedents, the PCIT could not exercise revisional powers under Section 263. Following Supreme Court rulings, an order cannot be considered erroneous and prejudicial merely because two views are possible and the AO adopted one. Thus, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction for issuing the Section 153C notice was recorded on 05/01/2021, after the fourth proviso to Section 153A came into effect from 01/04/2017. As the income escaping assessment (Rs. 27,27,799/-) was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold mandated by this proviso, there was a specific bar on the AO to initiate proceedings under Section 153C. Therefore, the AO committed an error in issuing the notice and framing the assessment, which was subsequently set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the notices were sent to a wrong email address. In the interest of justice and fair play, it restored the appeal to the CIT(A), directing them to provide a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the appeal afresh.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on its merits. Therefore, the ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter on merits after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, also directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, concluding that the assessee manipulated loss through client code modification to conceal income. It found no procedural or factual illegality in the lower authorities' findings, including the recording of reasons, rejection of books of account, and obtaining approval for reassessment under section 148.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature, focusing on education and general public utility, and not commercial. It noted that the High Court had previously dismissed an appeal by the Revenue on similar grounds, and the assessee's activities were identical to another organization (Petrotech) whose activities were also deemed charitable.
The tribunal observed that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte and the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate all issues and contentions raised by the assessee. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for framing de-novo assessments, ensuring the assessee is provided an opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal observed that the assessment orders were passed ex-parte and the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate all issues and contentions raised by the assessee. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for framing de-novo assessments, ensuring the assessee is provided an opportunity of being heard.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found no illegality in the findings of the lower authorities. It was held that the assessee claimed bogus short-term capital loss and furnished inaccurate particulars of income to conceal true income, failing to provide a reasonable cause for the default. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that taxing gross receipts is untenable and agreed with the CIT(A)'s approach of estimation. However, it reduced the estimated profit rate from 12.5% to 8% based on Section 44AD and comparable data.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was indeed denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard, noting that the mode of service of the CIT(A)'s notices was unclear and that the assessee was not a habitual defaulter. To prevent miscarriage of justice and to rectify procedural impropriety, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that since the very basis for the penalty (the quantum additions/disallowances) had been set aside and remanded by a Co-ordinate Bench, the foundation for imposing the penalty no longer survived. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order sustaining the penalty and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, contingent upon the final outcome of the quantum assessment.
Following a precedent set by a coordinate bench in a similar case (Tejinder Kaur), the Tribunal held that the assessment order for AY 2021-22 should have been passed under Section 153C of the Act, not Section 143(3). Consequently, the assessment order dated 30.12.2022 passed under Section 143(3) and the CIT(A)'s order are quashed.
The Tribunal held that taxing gross receipts is untenable and agreed with the CIT(A)'s approach of estimation. However, it reduced the estimated profit rate from 12.5% to 8% based on Section 44AD and comparable data.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature, focusing on education and general public utility, and not commercial. It noted that the High Court had previously dismissed an appeal by the Revenue on similar grounds, and the assessee's activities were identical to another organization (Petrotech) whose activities were also deemed charitable.