Loading ITAT cases…
891 orders · Page 12 of 18
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a common approval for multiple cases and assessment years. Consequently, the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C read with Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of a dead person, rendering the assessment proceeding void-ab-initio. The Tribunal further noted that no notice was served on the assessee during his lifetime or on the legal heir within the prescribed time. Consequently, the penalty proceedings also failed.
The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated by issuing notice under Section 148 to a deceased person are vitiated. Since no notice was served on the deceased or his legal heir, the assessment and penalty were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, both appeals were treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the investor companies. The numerous layers of companies and the lack of business activity by the investors indicated a colorable device to introduce unexplained money.
The Tribunal held that there was no cogent material before the lower authorities to conclude that the MOU was a device to reduce tax liability. The appeal regarding the disallowance of Rs. 84,70,700/- was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, both appeals were treated as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional ground regarding sales tax incentives. The Tribunal also allowed 60% depreciation on software purchase and allowed the bad debt claim subject to proof of write-off in books.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional ground regarding sales tax incentives. The Tribunal admitted the ground and decided to adjudicate it, stating that appellate authorities are not fettered by the Goetz India Ltd. decision in admitting new claims.
The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) erred in applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for benchmarking the international transactions. The Tribunal found that the TNMM method, as applied by the assessee, was more appropriate given the differences in product specifications, geographical locations, and transaction terms.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide and not due to intentional avoidance. The matter was restored to the AO for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not followed the directions given by the Ld. DRP in the final assessment order. Specifically, regarding the disallowance of leasehold improvement expenses, the DRP had given directions in AY 2014-15, which were to be applied mutatis mutandis for the current year. The DRP directed that certain expenses be considered revenue expenditure, while others be capitalized. However, the AO's final order made the disallowance as proposed in the draft assessment order without discussing or incorporating the DRP's directions. The Tribunal, respectfully following the judgments of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in *SRF vs NFAC*, *Anand NVH Products Ltd.*, and the co-ordinate bench decision in *Hitachi Astemo Haryana Pvt.Ltd.*, found that this procedural error did not make the assessment proceedings fatal but required an opportunity for the AO to correct the error. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the file of the AO with the direction to pass the final assessment order after incorporating and considering the directions given by the Ld. DRP. Adjudication of other grounds was deferred pending this correction. Ground No. 3 of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that no substantive addition could be made in the hands of Shri Mukesh Kumar Kaushik, nor could any addition be made in the hands of Smt Santosh Kumari Kaushik on a protective basis. The ultimate beneficiary of the funds was determined to be Shri Deepak Kumar Gupta.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act was illegal and bad in law, as the matter was already pending before the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal found that the PCIT was justified in invoking revision u/s 263 for the loan received from Aloke Bhatnagar due to inadequate inquiry by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CUP method was not appropriate due to differences in product thickness, geographical locations, sales volume, and terms and conditions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in restricting the application of the CUP method to only a few transactions.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) to decide afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for decision on merits. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since no search was conducted at the assessee's registered office, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A by the Assessing Officer was illegal and void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 153A was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making an addition on a ground (anonymous donations) that was different from the original reason recorded for reopening (cash deposits). The addition was based on a new ground for which no separate notice under Section 148 was issued.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained as sales proceeds from the jewellery business. The Tribunal noted the continuity of business, the pattern of cash sales, and the absence of adverse findings in the assessee's financial results and stock movement.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable in law, primarily because the assessee had passed away before the proceedings were initiated. Consequently, all other merits-based arguments became academic.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable in law, primarily because the assessee had passed away before the proceedings were initiated. Consequently, all other merits-based arguments became academic.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal as it was a legal issue. Following various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal partly allowed the disallowances for repairs & maintenance, miscellaneous expenses, and travelling & conveyance, restricting them to 10% of the actual expenditure due to the estimated nature of the initial disallowances and lack of rejection of books. The addition under Section 41(1) for sundry creditors was deleted, as the liabilities were acknowledged by the assessee and no cessation of liability or prior claim for deduction was established by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to decide the applications after hearing the Appellant and allowing them to produce documents.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years, and the absence of draft assessment orders in the records. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years, and the absence of draft assessment orders in the records. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years, and the absence of draft assessment orders in the records. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years, and the absence of draft assessment orders in the records. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years, and the absence of draft assessment orders in the records. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to decide the applications after hearing the Appellant and allowing them to produce documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had relied on a limited part of the society's memorandum and had not considered evidence showing the imparting of education as an objective. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(E) to call for relevant information and decide the application afresh.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal as it was a legal issue. Following various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT under Section 151 for reopening the assessment under Section 148 was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this invalid approval were void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO for payments to transporters, as these were genuine business expenses paid through regular banking channels. Similarly, the disallowance of interest expenses was deleted, as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as no additional interest was received or accrued, and no corroborative evidence was produced by the AO. The affidavit of the borrower also supported the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the possibility of communication gaps during virtual hearings cannot be ruled out, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that there is no substance in the Revenue's grounds of appeal. It was established that the law permits accepting the audit report in Form 10B at any stage of assessment, and the requirement is directory, not mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) enhanced the disallowances by making additions on account of new sources of income without issuing an enhancement notice, which is a statutory requirement. The CIT(A) does not have the power to make additions on account of new sources of income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's reasons to be bonafide and not due to intentional avoidance. The matter was restored to the AO for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that no substantive addition could be made in the hands of Shri Mukesh Kumar Kaushik, nor could any addition be made in the hands of Smt Santosh Kumari Kaushik on a protective basis. The ultimate beneficiary of the funds was determined to be Shri Deepak Kumar Gupta.
The Tribunal held that the interest payment of Rs. 1,18,00,755/- could not be considered as unaccounted income or expenditure, as it was found to be notional. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of this amount by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and not in accordance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without indicating any thoughtful process. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT was mechanical and lacked due application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years and did not indicate perusal of assessment records. This decision was supported by a jurisdictional High Court ruling on a similar issue.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple years and assessees and did not show any perusal of assessment records. This decision was supported by a jurisdictional High Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years and lacked any indication of perusal of draft assessment orders or related documents. This renders the assessment orders invalid.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT was mechanical and lacked due application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years and did not indicate perusal of assessment records. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case was also cited.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years and did not indicate perusal of draft orders or related documents. This renders the assessment orders invalid.