Loading ITAT cases…
169 orders · Page 2 of 4
The tribunal held that a penalty order passed in the name of a dead person is unsustainable and without jurisdiction. Such an order is considered null and void.
The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A require the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction, and disallowances cannot be automatic, especially when no dividend income is received. Brokerage fees paid for tenant procurement in the ordinary course of business were allowed as a deduction. Short credit of TDS was directed to be rectified.
The tribunal condoned the 111-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's illiteracy. Finding that both the original assessment (under Section 144 read with Section 147) and the CIT(A) proceedings were ex-parte due to notices being sent to an incorrect address, the tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to conduct a fresh examination and de-novo assessment after providing the assessee with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and agreed to give an opportunity to present its case. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the addition for cash deposited in the assessee's sole account, as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof. For cash deposited in a joint account with his sister, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 50%.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. The tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) ignored the reasonable cause for the 17-day delay in filing the appeal, despite supporting documents. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for default without a proper opportunity to be heard. In the interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee did not satisfy the 'make available' clause of the India-Canada DTAA. Therefore, the receipts were not taxable in India as FTS under the treaty.
The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the assessee pleaded for an opportunity to present her case. In the interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA(2) are distinct and separate from assessment proceedings, akin to proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The AO/CIT(A) had disbelieved the assessee's explanation regarding the shares found from his premises, which were claimed to belong to Arun Paliwal and held as collateral for a loan. However, the Tribunal found that the AO/CIT(A) had not discharged the onus of proving the assessee's explanation to be false. The Tribunal noted that while the Shanti Bai Yadav case was distinguishable, the decision in Elite Promoters Pvt Ltd was applicable. In Elite Promoters, it was held that penalty proceedings require the department to prove the assessee's explanation false, and mere confirmation of quantum addition is insufficient. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to discharge its onus to demonstrate that the investment in shares was actually made by the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 158BFA(2) was held to be legally invalid. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the impugned penalty. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessees, there was a possibility of communication gaps between the taxpayers and their counsel, especially with the introduction of faceless/hybrid hearings. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore all the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities for the assessees to plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s orders lacked substantive lower appellate adjudication as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires framing points of determination and detailed discussion. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while the source of deposits was not fully proven, public donations could not be ruled out. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,85,000/- was deemed appropriate, and it was clarified that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 on or after 01.04.2021 for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation. Following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court, the reassessment orders were quashed as bad in law and void ab initio.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee's management had decided to pay the disputed amount ascertained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and requested permission to withdraw the appeal to proceed with the payment of the ascertained demand of Rs. 64,001/-. The Revenue did not dispute these averments. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn in terms of the application, subject to all just exceptions. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original appeal, as it was withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked detailed reasoning and that the AO's assessment order contained anomalies regarding the nature of income. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, concluding that the shares of M/s. Presha Metallurgical Ltd. were a penny stock used for accommodation entries. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut these findings.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite repeated notices. The assessee requested the matter to be sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that investments in share application money and stock in trade cannot be considered for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) as they are incapable of yielding tax-free income. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal found that the OD account statement clearly showed borrowed funds were directly utilized for the property acquisition, establishing a nexus. However, accepting the assessee's alternate submission, the disallowance was restricted to a specific amount calculated based on the utilized borrowed funds.
The Tribunal held that the appellant had not provided any material to establish their status as a legal representative of the deceased assessee, Late Sh. Yash Chowdhary, as defined under section 2(29) of the Act read with section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Furthermore, there was no record of the appellant being proceeded against by the department under section 159 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's claim at this stage and rejected the appeals. The ratio decidendi is that an individual claiming to represent a deceased assessee must demonstrate their legal standing either by succeeding to the estate, managing it, or by being subject to proceedings under section 159 of the Act. The appellant was granted liberty to file fresh appeals if they could satisfy these statutory conditions or if proceedings under section 159 were initiated against them. The appeals were dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS Scheme and consequently withdrew its appeal. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals filed by the assessee on merit, acknowledging the typographical error in the lower authority's order. Consequently, both appeals of the assessee were dismissed.
The ITAT held that the assessments framed by the AO in the name of a non-existent company were bad in law and quashed them. The tribunal distinguished the present case from precedents where the assessee had not disclosed the amalgamation.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeals were not maintainable because the CIT(A) had already accepted the assessee's contentions and granted relief in the lower appellate proceedings. Consequently, the appeals were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the exclusion of time for exchange of information under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B is applicable only if the reference is made in terms of Section 90/90A and the relevant DTAA. Since the reference was not in terms of the amended Indo-Swiss DTAA, the assessments were barred by limitation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the closure of business and lack of mala fide. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular regarding the minimum tax effect was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rejected on this specific ground.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal on non-prosecution without addressing the merits. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the orders of the CIT(A) were not in accordance with the law. Consequently, both orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the orders of the CIT(A) were not in accordance with the law. Consequently, both orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was primarily because the tax effect of the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the latest CBDT circular for filing appeals before the Tribunal.
The tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all necessary documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. It was also noted that the statement of Mr. Sanjeev Aggarwal, recorded at odd hours and later retracted, could not be relied upon, and the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to rebut it.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was illegal and without jurisdiction because the material used was seized from a third party, and the mandatory procedure under Section 153C, including recording satisfaction notes, was not followed. The addition for the gold bar was also found to be unsustainable due to lack of rebuttal to the assessee's explanation and supporting documents.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and material on record. It observed that the addition was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) based on the Assessing Officer's order. The Tribunal was of the considered view that the assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law. The assessee was also directed to make proper submissions and cooperate with the tax authorities. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on entries in the 'Hazir Johri' software without corroborative evidence. Relying on previous judgments with similar facts, the Tribunal found no concrete evidence linking the seized data to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the administration fee was not royalty, as decided in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Regarding subscription fees, the Tribunal ruled that they were not royalty as the assessee retained ownership of the copyrighted material and the subscribers were only granted a limited license to access data, not to use it for commercial purposes.
The Tribunal deleted the protective addition related to Muthoot Finance loans as the husband had acknowledged and repaid them. For cash deposits in one appeal, the Tribunal found the CIT(A) erred in not providing sufficient opportunity to prove the source and remanded the issue to the AO. The other appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 11 is available only on income within the meaning of Section 11 and not on deemed income. Therefore, the assessee cannot accumulate deemed income. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not appear for hearings, leading to an ex-parte decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn due to settlement under the VSVS scheme. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the VSVS application fails.
The Tribunal held that the matter required remission back to the file of the Learned CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The reasoning was that in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice, it was necessary to grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to present supportive evidence. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had conceded to the lack of appropriate documentation before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Learned CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to consider the evidence already on record or any new evidence that the assessee might file. The Tribunal also clarified that if the assessee failed to cooperate with the Learned CIT(A), the latter would be at liberty to proceed with the matter and finalize it in accordance with the law. The specific issue of whether the transaction constituted a gift or a sale, and the consequent tax liability, was left to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as withdrawn due to settlement under the VSVS scheme. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the VSVS application fails.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) that deleted the additions. It noted that the statements relied upon by the AO were retracted, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases.