Loading ITAT cases…
382 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153A for AY 2010-11 was barred by the limitation period. The ten-year block period should be reckoned from the end of the AY relevant to the financial year in which the search was conducted, as per Explanation 1 to Section 153A.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore it if the scheme proceedings were not satisfactory.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Assessing Officer had sought a common approval from the prescribed authority for seven assessees across seven assessment years (2012-13 to 2018-19) on 12.12.2019. The Tribunal, relying on the decisions in PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 163 taxmann.com 9 (Del.), PCIT Vs. MDLR Hotels (P) Ltd. (2024) 166 taxmann.com 327 (Del.), and ACIT vs. Serajuddin and Co. (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC), concluded that such a combined approval under section 153D vitiates the entire assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment framed for Assessment Year 2018-19. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed in these terms.
The Tribunal held that the TPO had not thoroughly examined the issue of receivables, failing to analyze patterns over time or consider the impact on working capital. The case was remitted to the TPO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal CIT for reopening the assessments was mechanical and not in accordance with Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous or that adequate enquiries were not made. The PCIT's directions were considered fishing and roving enquiries, not permissible under Section 263.
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds concerning the validity of the assessment orders due to lack of proper approval under section 153D, citing decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and a Special Bench. However, on the merits of the case, the Tribunal found that the 'Ekrarname' was found at the premises of M/s KDP Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the assessee confirmed receiving an advance of Rs. 50,00,000/- from Shri Vinod Tyagi, but Shri Vinod Tyagi denied confirming the transaction. Crucially, the Tribunal observed that a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was received from Shri Vinod Tyagi via cheque no. 00012 dated 04.07.2011 against the booking of 3 flats in M/s KDP Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and a receipt was issued. This cheque payment appropriately explained the source of the Rs. 50,00,000/-. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had directed the AO to initiate action against Shri Vinod Tyagi for taxing the advance. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the source of Rs. 50,00,000/- was fully explained and the addition deserved to be deleted. As the appeal was decided on merits in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the additional legal grounds.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the addition on account of purchases under Section 40A(3) and the addition of share capital. The Tribunal also allowed the additional ground related to amalgamation, stating that post-amalgamation, no income can be added in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration retrospectively. The provisions regarding 'specified violations' and consequential withdrawal of registration were introduced effective from April 1, 2022, and thus could not be applied retrospectively to earlier assessment years.
The tribunal deleted the addition, noting that the reopening under Section 148 was initially against the assessee's husband, and the amount was added to her income based only on his statement. There was no indication in assessment or appellate findings that the assessee herself made the impugned cash deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had also proceeded ex-parte. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the lower appellate authority for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that LIBOR plus 400 basis points should be applied for interest on outstanding receivables, as invoices were in foreign currency. The TPO's order was quashed for not following the DRP's binding directions. The AO cannot enhance income in the final assessment order without it being proposed in the draft order. The AO was directed to verify interest under Section 234A, interest under Section 234B was deemed consequential, and interest under Section 234C was applicable only to returned income. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A were deemed unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had also proceeded ex-parte. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the introduction of faceless hearings, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, as statutory provisions, particularly Section 250(6), mandate a decision on merits with a speaking order addressing all grounds. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
Recognizing the ex-parte nature of proceedings at both AO and CIT(A) levels and the possibility of communication gaps in the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeal to CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be granted three effective opportunities to present its case, with a rider that they must plead and prove their case at their own risk.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) proceeding ex-parte might be due to communication gaps inherent in the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with three effective opportunities to present their case, albeit at their own risk and responsibility.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs.25,00,000/- under Section 54B, finding it an invalid enhancement that introduced a new head of income. Regarding the Rs.9,00,000/- cash deposits, considering the assessee's land sales and unproved agricultural receipts, the Tribunal confirmed a lump sum addition of Rs.5,00,000/-.
The Tribunal found neither the assessee's explanation of retaining cash for a year nor the department's dismissal of it entirely convincing. In the interest of justice, the addition was restricted to Rs. 1,00,000, granting relief of Rs. 10,50,000. It was also clarified that Section 115BBE applies to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's tax effect circular is applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rejected based on the low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that disallowing expenses solely on the ground that the parties were not registered under GST is incorrect, as there is no such requirement under the Income Tax Act. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the expenses.
The Tribunal inferred that the cash deposits, despite not being fully reconciled, represented the assessee's business turnover. Consequently, it deemed a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- as appropriate, providing the assessee relief of Rs.11,83,000/-, with a rider that this should not be treated as a precedent.
The tribunal acknowledged potential communication gaps, particularly with virtual hearings, and noted the CIT(A)'s non-compliance with Section 250(6) regarding framing points of determination. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the tribunal set aside the appeal and remanded the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities for the appellant.
The Tribunal acknowledged potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing process and non-compliance with Section 250(6) by the lower appellate authority. In the interest of justice, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, providing the appellant three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal as they decided to pay the disputed amount of Rs.64,001/-. The Revenue did not dispute this. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three effective opportunities to present their case. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte without framing points of determination as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal, relying on precedent, ruled that the requirement to upload Form 9A by the due date of filing the return is directory, not mandatory, for claiming Section 11 exemption. Consequently, the assessee's sole substantive ground was accepted, and the appeal was allowed, subject to the Assessing Officer re-computing the income after verifying all relevant facts.
The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the commercial exigencies of the share transfer at a loss, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT, in the interest of justice and considering the limited opportunities given to the assessee, restored the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing proper and sufficient opportunities to the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable in law because the assessee had already passed away prior to the initiation of the proceedings. A cited precedent also supported this conclusion.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the DTVSVS scheme. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the claimed loss and the actual figure, acknowledging the possibility of a clerical error. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalty imposed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, referencing the pandemic period and landmark judgments. It also accepted the assessee's substantive ground regarding foreign tax credit relief, finding the filing of Form 67 to be directory, not mandatory.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the tax effect of Rs. 23,30,822/- was less than the minimum prescribed limit of Rs. 60 lakhs. This limit is set by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17.09.2024, which is applicable retrospectively to all pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify the defects in the vouchers and the addition was not supported by corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) also confirmed the addition without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s refusal to entertain grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings in an appeal filed against a Section 154 rectification. It clarified that the scope of a rectification appeal is limited, and reopening validity is independently appealable under Section 246A(1).
The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantiated the source of the cash deposits through documents like the sale deed and legal heirs certificate. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the lower authorities demonstrated non-application of mind, was bad in law, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore deleted the addition.
The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the file of the CIT(A) directing the assessee to file condonation applications. The CIT(A) is to decide the condonation applications first and then decide the appeals on merits if the delay is condoned. The Supreme Court's suo motu order regarding exclusion of period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was considered.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the virtual hearing mechanism and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. The appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the Assessee's submission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the Assessee the liberty to restore the appeal if its application under the 'DTVSVS-2024' scheme fails for any reason.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte proceedings might have been due to communication gaps in the faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to present their case.
The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the file of the CIT(A) directing the assessee to file condonation applications. The CIT(A) is to decide the condonation applications first and then decide the appeals on merits if the delay is condoned. The Supreme Court's suo motu order regarding exclusion of period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was considered.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the grievance of the Revenue was less than Rs.60 lacs. Therefore, the appeal was not admissible in light of CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was passed ex-parte and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal was incorrect as the condition of Section 249(4)(a) did not apply given the declared loss. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to admit the appeal, decide it on merits, and provide a fair hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, relying on precedent, ruled that if GST receivable is neither claimed as a deduction nor debited to the Profit and Loss account, Section 43B is not applicable, and therefore no disallowance can be made. Consequently, the impugned addition of GST receivables was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that while there is a limitation period for rectification, a pending application creates a bona fide belief for the assessee. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the file of the CIT(A) directing the assessee to file condonation applications. The CIT(A) is to decide the condonation applications first and then decide the appeals on merits if the delay is condoned. The Supreme Court's suo motu order regarding exclusion of period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was considered.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the Rs. 3 crore addition, noting that the seized document showed both the receipt and repayment of the loan, thus it could not be considered unexplained money under Section 69A. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of invoking Section 68 or initiating proceedings under Section 269SS/269T, such a loan should be treated as a liability, not income.
Acknowledging potential communication gaps in the online hearing system, the tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted three effective opportunities to present their case, pleading and proving all relevant facts at their own risk and responsibility. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.