Loading ITAT cases…
589 orders · Page 8 of 12
The Tribunal considered the evidence provided by the assessee, including affidavits, marriage invitation card, and proof of agricultural land, finding them genuine. It ruled that the CIT(A)'s objection regarding the stamp paper dates was not sustainable given the other acceptable documents and the unchallenged veracity of the evidence. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 10,80,000 made by the Ld. CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's circumstances, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to reframe the assessment after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and furnish documents as per law.
The Tribunal held that the cash found in the lockers belonged to the RNB Temple Trust and Ram Bajaj Foundation, as supported by their balance sheets and the fact that most of the cash found in the lockers was accepted as belonging to these entities. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court decisions, held that the accumulated deficit arising from expenditure over income in previous years is allowable to be set off against the surplus of the current year. It clarified that the amendment to Section 11, denying such set-off through the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2017-18.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the investments in mutual funds were sourced from foreign remittances and redemption of existing mutual funds, as evidenced by bank statements. The long-term capital gains were also found to be covered under Section 10(38).
The Tribunal held that the Department's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, in light of the new monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No.09/2024. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.
The Tribunal found that the AO's order under section 148A(d) was a non-speaking order, demonstrating a complete non-application of mind. The AO failed to provide reasoned findings for discarding the assessee's factual submissions and evidence regarding her non-resident status and the source of funds. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 could not be sustained.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the investments in mutual funds were sourced from foreign remittances and redemption of existing mutual funds, as evidenced by bank statements. The long-term capital gains were also found to be covered under Section 10(38).
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground challenging jurisdiction. It held that since the re-assessment was based on incriminating materials unearthed during a search operation involving a third party (Dhanuka Group), where the assessee was covered under Section 133A, the proper procedure would have been to invoke Section 153C. Consequently, the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 148 was found to be illegal and void ab initio and was quashed.
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground challenging jurisdiction. It held that since the re-assessment was based on incriminating materials unearthed during a search operation involving a third party (Dhanuka Group), where the assessee was covered under Section 133A, the proper procedure would have been to invoke Section 153C. Consequently, the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 148 was found to be illegal and void ab initio and was quashed.
The Tribunal observed that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders against the Assessee. Finding it reasonable to provide an opportunity, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and a fresh assessment after allowing the Assessee to be heard.
The ITAT, noting the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) and the substantial addition sustained, held that the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to be heard on the merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper hearing and re-adjudicate the matter on merits.
The ITAT, noting the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) and the substantial addition sustained, held that the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to be heard on the merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper hearing and re-adjudicate the matter on merits.
The ITAT, noting the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) and the substantial addition sustained, held that the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to be heard on the merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper hearing and re-adjudicate the matter on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the capital increase. The amount originated from the assessee's share of profit and capital in the LLP, which had been duly disclosed in earlier years' income tax returns, and the share of profit from the LLP was exempt under section 10(2A) of the Act. The Revenue failed to rebut these facts.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that any assessment, including those framed under section 153A or in subsequent rounds following a remand, requires prior approval under section 153D to be sustainable in law. It clarified that such an assessment is not merely an administrative order but a fresh assessment needing proper statutory compliance.
The Tribunal held that, based on its Standing Order (effective 1st November 1997) and the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. ABC Papers Ltd., the "situs" of the Assessing Officer determines jurisdiction. Since the assessment was framed in Lucknow, the ITAT Delhi Benches lacked territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, both the appeal and cross-objections were dismissed, with liberty granted to the parties to file them before the appropriate Lucknow Benches, and any delay caused would be condoned.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)-NFAC's order lacked detailed adjudication as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh and proper adjudication, with the condition that the taxpayer must present all relevant facts within three effective opportunities.
The Tribunal condoned a 25-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the explanation genuine. It observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing a proper opportunity to substantiate the source of the cash deposit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, directing the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard and to consider all evidence.
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) indeed passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance with the notice. To ensure justice, the tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) with directions to pass a speaking order on the merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s enhancement of the principal loan amount of Rs. 90.52 crores, holding that the CIT(A)'s enhancement jurisdiction u/s 251(1)(a) does not extend to adding a new head of income when the AO only dealt with interest disallowance. Regarding the interest disallowance of Rs. 5.47 crores, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification, as a relevant SEBI order favoring the assessee was not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved another opportunity to be heard on the merits of the additions. It directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of hearing and decide the issue on merit as per law, instructing the assessee to make proper submissions and cooperate.
The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order under Section 263, ruling it a nullity because the notice and the revisional order were issued in the name of a deceased person, even though the legal heir was brought on record. The tribunal relied on a precedent from its Amritsar Coordinate Bench, which held that mentioning the deceased's PAN in such an order renders it a nullity.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessee filing under Section 44AD is not required to maintain books of accounts, making Section 68 inapplicable for unexplained cash deposits. It also noted that the relevant amendment to Section 44AD concerning cash deposits was not in force for the assessment year 2011-12, thereby concluding that the Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.
The Tribunal found that the original reasons for reopening did not mention M/s. G.S. Industries, and the statement forming the basis of the addition was recorded subsequent to the reopening notice. It ruled that additions cannot be made on grounds inconsistent with the recorded reasons for reopening, nor can 'reasons to believe' for reopening be based on statements recorded after the notice for reopening. Thus, the reassessment proceedings were held invalid due to a lack of coherence between the reasons and the addition, and non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal, after verifying the records and confirmation from the Departmental Representative, found that the assessee had indeed not debited the contingent liability as an expenditure in its Profit and Loss Account. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for disallowing an expense that was never claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned a 71-day delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. Recognizing that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A), the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is now directed to pass a speaking order after granting the assessee a full opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal ruled that since the foundational assessment order had already been declared "non est" (void) by a prior Tribunal order, the basis for the PCIT to exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was eliminated. Consequently, the revisional proceedings could not survive.
The tribunal, upon the assessee's submission, permitted the withdrawal of one of the duplicate appeals, specifically ITA No.4547/Del/2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is an educational institution operating in a rural area, regularly receiving fees in cash, and that the authorities themselves recorded substantial cash deposits. Since the assessee's books of accounts were not rejected, and no specific defects were identified by the revenue authorities, the Tribunal found that the adverse inference drawn regarding cash deposits during demonetization lacked sound footing. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disputed addition.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's socio-economic background, including being an ex-serviceman from a joint agricultural family, and accepted the explanation of cash withdrawals by family members and himself over time as the source for the property purchase. The Tribunal found the rejection of the assessee's explanation by the lower authorities invalid, quashed the addition, and deleted it.
Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court in a similar situation, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if the declaration filed under the scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order violated the principles of natural justice by not providing a proper opportunity of being heard. To prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal quashed the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be granted a proper opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in consequence of an order under section 263, where the original assessment was under section 153A, requires mandatory prior approval under section 153D. Since no such approval was obtained, the assessment orders were deemed legally invalid and quashed. The tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's identical cases for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, ruling that a strict reliance on an Apex Court's cut-off date for limitation without considering the genuine difficulties faced during the Covid-19 pandemic was unacceptable. Consequently, the case has been remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with directions to grant the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and to consider any evidence presented.
The Tribunal held that when incriminating material belonging to a person other than the searched person is found during a search, the assessment against that other person must be initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, not Section 147/148. Since the reopening of the assessee's assessment under Section 148 was solely based on documents seized during a third-party search, it was deemed void-ab-initio and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to consider the tangible material submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to consider the tangible material submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued, rendering the assessment without jurisdiction and void. Consequently, the quantum assessment was quashed, and the related penalty was also set aside as it was consequential to the quashed assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to verify whether GST was separately indicated in the bills or if payment was made earlier than credit, and to confirm if TDS was indeed deducted on purchase values inclusive of GST, then allow the TDS credit after due verification as per CBDT Circular No.13 of 2021 (para 4.3.2).
The Tribunal condoned the 44-day delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing that the assessee claimed they could not properly present their case before the CIT(A), the Tribunal remitted all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued, rendering the assessment without jurisdiction and void. Consequently, the quantum assessment was quashed, and the related penalty was also set aside as it was consequential to the quashed assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's counsel contended the assessee could not present their case before the CIT(A) and the issue of cash deposit was not properly addressed. With no objection from the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing an opportunity of hearing and review of all evidence.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly examined the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits. The addition was made on an ad-hoc basis without considering the business nature and increased turnover of the assessee. The Tribunal held that Section 68 is for examining credits in books, not cash withdrawals.
The Tribunal found no reason to uphold the penalty, noting that the assessee had filed all relevant details and supportive evidence. Citing CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal reiterated that quantum and penalty proceedings are parallel, and an addition/disallowance in the former does not automatically attract penalty. Therefore, the impugned penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 20,50,000/- by relying on a previous ITAT decision regarding presumptive taxation. It also deleted the protective addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- made in the assessee's hands as the substantial addition was already made in the wife's hands.
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim, stating that Rule 26 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules does not redefine "legal representative" beyond Section 2(29) of the Income-tax Act. It found that the appellant failed to provide evidence proving he represented the deceased's estate or intermeddled with it. The Tribunal clarified that the appellant could file a fresh appeal if he fulfills the stringent conditions of Section 2(29) of the Act read with Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had genuine reasons for non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). To ensure justice, the issues in dispute are remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case after affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that both penalty notices issued to the assessee were defective and invalid. The first notice was a pre-printed proforma failing to strike off irrelevant clauses, making it ambiguous, while the second notice did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was to be levied, rendering it vague. Citing High Court precedents, the Tribunal concluded that such defective notices vitiate penalty proceedings.