Loading ITAT cases…
882 orders · Page 17 of 18
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled its obligations by submitting all relevant documentation, including confirmations, ITRs, PAN, audit reports, and bank statements of the shareholders, as well as a valuation report for the shares. The Tribunal noted that the shares were issued at a price lower than the valued price.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not controvert the assessee's averments regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to revive it if the scheme's benefit is not extended.
The Tribunal found that the additional evidences were relevant for the adjudication of the disputes. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, with a direction to admit the additional evidences.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove its charitable nature and genuine activities. The rejection by the Ld. CIT(Exemption) was based on grounds that were not substantiated by material evidence.
The Tribunal held that brand promotion expenses, being routine business expenses incurred in the course of running an ongoing business, are revenue in nature. The Tribunal also found substance in the explanation for certain cash payments and partly allowed the appeal regarding disallowance of expenses under Section 40A(3). Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that no adjustment can be made in book profits for MAT purposes concerning disallowance under Section 14A.
The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution, being held in trust by the employer, must be deposited on or before the due date as per Section 43B of the Income-tax Act for deduction. The recent Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts without pointing out specific defects and that the addition was made without basis. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided extensive documentation and explanations, which were not rebutted by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, to ensure justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable. The relevant legislative amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2013, effective from April 1, 2014, and therefore, was not applicable to the assessment year 2012-13.
The Tribunal held that communication gaps in virtual hearings cannot be ruled out, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that incentives received under the FPS and SHIS schemes are capital receipts and not chargeable to tax. It also directed that these incentives be excluded from book profits for MAT purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the lower authorities treated the entire Rs.16.24 lakhs as unexplained and liable under Section 115BBE, a lumpsum addition of Rs.1.24 lakhs would be just and proper, with the rider that this should not be treated as a precedent. This grants the assessee relief of Rs.15 lakhs on the disputed amount. Regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE, the Tribunal, following the Madras High Court's decision in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, held that the provision comes into effect for transactions done on or after April 1, 2017. Therefore, the assessee is directed to be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act, implying that Section 115BBE is not applicable to the assessment year 2017-18 for these deposits. The ratio is that Section 115BBE is prospective from April 1, 2017, and for earlier periods, unexplained cash credits are to be assessed under normal provisions, with a reasonable addition if the explanation is not fully satisfactory.
The Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This decision was based on the principle that technicalities should give way to substantial justice, as established in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others.
The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction note for invoking section 153C was vague, non-descript, and lacked application of mind, failing to link incriminating material to specific assessment years. Consequently, the assessment proceedings under section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a woman, deserved sympathetic consideration for the delay. It was noted that the delay was substantial but the claim of wrong addresses needed inquiry. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the larger interest of justice and the possibility of communication gaps, particularly with the introduction of faceless hearings, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted three effective opportunities to plead and prove their case, at their own risk and responsibility. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the disallowances or additions made by the Assessing Officer or affirmed by the CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that in cases where lower appellate proceedings were ex-parte and there's a possibility of procedural oversight or communication issues, especially in the context of evolving technology, restoring the matter for a fresh hearing serves the interest of justice.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
The tribunal held that the requirement of filing the tax audit report (Form 10B) on or before the due date of filing the return is directory, not mandatory, as per established case law. Therefore, the refusal of the exemption claim solely on this ground was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(3)(c) is prospective and applicable from AY 2023-24. However, it also noted that the law as it stood before the amendment allowed for utilization within five years plus an additional year. The Tribunal applied a stricter interpretation in light of Supreme Court judgments and reversed the lower authorities' actions.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed by the Assessing Officer in his personal name. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal but allowed the department liberty to file a fresh appeal in the correct official capacity, with the delay condoned.
The tribunal noted a landmark Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT which settled the issue in favor of the department, stating that ESI/EPF contributions must be deposited before the due date of the corresponding statute. The aspect of actual salary disbursement was not adjudicated by lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had traveled beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny. The assessment was therefore not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and, in the interest of justice, set aside the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10-IE is a directory provision and not mandatory, and it can be filed even during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal adopted the reasoning from a previous decision and allowed the assessee's grievance.
The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority had proceeded ex parte and the assessee claimed lack of knowledge of notices. Considering this, the Tribunal granted further opportunity to the assessee to represent the case before the CIT(A) and remitted the issue for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10-IE is a directory provision and not mandatory, and it can be filed before the assessing authority during the assessment. Therefore, the assessee's grievance is accepted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a woman, deserved sympathetic consideration for the delay. It was noted that the delay was substantial but the claim of wrong addresses needed inquiry. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the explanation for the delay in depositing the cheque was not adequately supported by evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that the matter requires fresh factual verification by the Assessing Officer rather than substantive adjudication. The appeal is restored to the Assessing Officer for appropriate adjudication with three opportunities for hearing for the appellant.
The Tribunal held that technical aspects should not bar substantial justice and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the taxpayer must prove their case.
The Tribunal held that a right of hearing does not inherently include a right to cross-examine, which depends on circumstances. The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of bogus purchase disallowances, finding no evidence.
The Tribunal followed its previous orders and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance based on the actual disbursement date of salary/wages.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for VSVS and settled the dispute by paying the tax. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(Appeals) on merits were set aside, and the appeal was treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the COVID-19 pandemic period and the assessee's explanation for not receiving the penalty order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. It was held that technical aspects must yield to substantial justice, and the taxpayer will have to plead and prove their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and to submit necessary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed filed the correct audit report (Form 10B) as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act and that the furnishing of the audit report is a procedural requirement. Therefore, the assessee should be considered eligible for the Section 11 exemption.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the investments made in FY 2011-12 could not have been treated as unexplained for AY 2013-14. Consequently, the impugned addition was deleted.
The Tribunal observed potential communication gaps with virtual hearings and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for the AY 2012-13, the assessment was unabated, and any addition must be based on seized material. The Revenue failed to provide any such incriminating material. For AY 2013-14, the assessment was abated, and the assessee had already provided all necessary details to the AO. Therefore, no grounds were found to revive the disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the period of limitation, considering the extension due to TOLA and the dates of issuance of the show cause notice and the subsequent notice under Section 148.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the VSVS scheme and the Revenue had no objection to the appeals being disposed of under this scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the appeal was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and potential non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was unabated and any addition could only be made based on seized material, as per the landmark decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Since no such incriminating material was available with the Assessing Officer regarding the unsecured loans, the addition was directed to be deleted.