Loading ITAT cases…
808 orders · Page 14 of 17
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity for a hearing and decide the issue on merit.
The Tribunal held that given the ex-parte proceedings before the CIT(A)/NFAC and the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, it was appropriate to restore the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 269SS, particularly the introduction of 'specified sum', were intended to curb black money in real estate by prohibiting cash advances or other payments before the finalization of a transaction. Since the cash payment was made at the time of registration of sale deeds, it did not fall under the purview of the amended Section 269SS.
The tribunal noted that the AO passed the assessment order without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee, and the CIT(A) affirmed this action. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment with adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 445 days in filing the appeal. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on its merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte, there might have been communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC did not deal with the matter on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act, having passed an ex-parte order without proper adjudication. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, to provide an opportunity for a fair hearing on merit, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, to provide an opportunity for a fair hearing on merit, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 89,67,187/- under Section 35(2AB) was incorrect as the assessee had fulfilled the conditions and obtained necessary certification. The disallowance under Section 14A was sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessees and lacked substantive adjudication. Acknowledging potential communication gaps due to the new faceless/hybrid hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the denial of benefit for withdrawals was not sustainable. In the interest of justice, a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000 was deemed appropriate, granting the assessee relief.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of repair and maintenance, reducing it to 5% and clarifying it would not be a precedent. The addition made under section 115BBC was deleted as the funds were demonstrably not anonymous donations.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessees and lacked substantive adjudication. Acknowledging potential communication gaps due to the new faceless/hybrid hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 89,67,187/- under Section 35(2AB) was incorrect as the assessee had fulfilled the conditions and obtained necessary certification. The disallowance under Section 14A was sustained.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and for the interest of justice, decided that the matter requires a denovo assessment. The issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without considering relevant material and without complying with Section 250(6) of the Act, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with directions to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a reasoned order based on all available evidence.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps in virtual hearings could not be ruled out and that there was non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act by the lower appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2021-22 should have been conducted under Section 153C, as it fell within the six-year block period calculated from the date of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, not from the date of the search. Therefore, the assessment order under Section 143(3) was bad in law.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) sustained the addition by passing an ex-parte order due to non-furnishing of written submissions. For the sake of complete justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) to consider the facts, collect information, and decide after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps in virtual hearings could not be ruled out and that there was a lack of compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) to provide a hearing on merit.
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the department fully substantiated their stand. Considering the peculiar facts, a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- was deemed just and proper, to not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the ex-parte proceedings and the possibility of communication gaps in faceless hearings could not be ruled out. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was not maintainable before the Delhi benches due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Standing Order defining territorial jurisdiction, as on 01.10.1997, excluded Fatehabad district from the Delhi benches' jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documentary evidence, including a loan confirmation, bank statements of the lender, and the lender's financial statements. The Tribunal noted that the lender was a separate legal entity and had advanced the loan out of its own funds. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had failed to point out any specific defect in the evidence produced by the assessee that would render the loan transaction non-genuine. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The ratio decidendi is that once the assessee provides sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of a loan transaction, and the Revenue fails to demonstrate any specific defect in such evidence, the addition under Section 68 is unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessees and lacked substantive adjudication. Acknowledging potential communication gaps due to the new faceless/hybrid hearing system, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition of the entire purchase amount as unverifiable was not appropriate. Following the Supreme Court's ruling, it was decided that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and found merit in the assessee's submission.
The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to deposit a cost and participate in the proceedings with necessary submissions.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and found merit in the assessee's submission.
The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals were traceable to the cash deposited within a month, indicating sufficient withdrawals to support the assessee's submissions. The addition made by the AO was therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was not aware of the notices due to a mismatch in email addresses and lack of clear mention of postal service. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the FAA for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in one appeal. The assessee withdrew grounds related to TP additions as they were settled by an Advance Pricing Agreement. The addition for club expenses was deleted, following the Supreme Court's ruling that such expenses are for business purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 263 days in filing the appeal, finding it well explained. Since the assessee was not served due notices, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable without exempt income. The disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was also found to be unjustified in light of sufficient own funds. The penalty under Section 270A was deleted on a technical ground regarding the show cause notice.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable without exempt income. The disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was also found to be unjustified in light of sufficient own funds. The penalty under Section 270A was deleted on a technical ground regarding the show cause notice.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing. However, considering it an old appeal, it was decided to dispose of the matter based on available records. The Tribunal found that the matter required fresh consideration by the TPO.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee denied knowledge, his admission of helping M/s Sethi Coal Traders and the business relationship of his wife's firm (M/s Meenu Enterprises) with Sethi Coal Traders, where the assessee looked after the business, indicated the cash payments related to business transactions. However, the addition was made in the hands of the assessee instead of his wife, the proprietor of M/s Meenu Enterprises.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) concerning payments to labour, holding that TDS provisions were not attracted. For disallowances under Section 40A(3), the Tribunal ruled that payments made through banking channels and those below prescribed limits were not liable for disallowance. The disallowance under Section 37(1) was restricted.
The Tribunal held that the AO arbitrarily added amounts despite the TPO's observation that no adjustment was required. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3,84,06,821/-. Remaining grounds were restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by purchasing shares through banking channels, in dematerialized form, and selling them through a SEBI-registered broker with transactions routed through the stock exchange and consideration received via banking channels. The Tribunal relied on a Delhi High Court judgment concerning the same scrip which held the transactions to be genuine.
The Tribunal quashed the Transfer Pricing Officer's order and the subsequent assessment order. It held that the reference to the TPO was bad in law as the AO lacked the power to make such a reference. The Tribunal also found that the AO failed to issue the final assessment order in conformity with the DRP's directions.
The Tribunal noted discrepancies between the Form 26AS, the assessee's declared income, and the payer company's financial statements. Following a coordinate bench's order, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to examine the issue afresh, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee society on security deposits is to be set off against the interest income earned on such deposits. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee society on security deposits is to be set off against the interest income earned on such deposits. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the case was reopened based on cash deposits, and the assessee had explained the sources as business receipts and agricultural income, which the AO accepted. However, the AO rejected cash deposits out of cash withdrawals. The assessee's counsel brought to the Tribunal's notice that during the year, the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 23,97,300/-, and the disputed redeposits of Rs. 6,45,600/- were only a part of these withdrawals. The Tribunal found that there were sufficient cash withdrawals made by the assessee during the year, which could support the assessee's submissions regarding the redeposit of withdrawn cash. Therefore, the Tribunal was inclined to allow the grounds raised by the assessee. The addition made by the AO was deleted. The issue regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was not expressly decided but was implicitly accepted by the Tribunal proceeding to decide the merits of the addition.
The Tribunal found that the approval letter for the assessment did not reflect any application of mind by the approving authority. Relying on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments, the Tribunal held that the approval was mechanical and invalid.
The Tribunal held that the additions on account of bogus expenses and loss on sale of shares were already considered in the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) and deleted by the CIT(A), with the CIT(A)'s order being upheld. Therefore, these issues could not be agitated again in reassessment proceedings.