Loading ITAT cases…
891 orders · Page 5 of 18
The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground regarding the non-issuance of the Section 143(2) notice. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, it was held that the issuance of a Section 143(2) notice is mandatory once a return is filed in response to a Section 148 notice. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO without issuing this notice was deemed bad in law and void ab initio, and the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted under Section 153D for multiple assessees and assessment years was bad in law. Additions made on the basis of documents found in the search of other persons cannot be made under Section 153A.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds as they involved a question of law. Relying on a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal held that the consolidated approval under Section 153D was bad in law as it was not granted for each assessee and each assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are attracted to EDC paid by real estate developers to HUDA. The assessee was rightly treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a change of opinion and were beyond the time limitation prescribed, as there was no new information. Furthermore, the AO sought to apply circulars retrospectively, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal, agreeing with the PCIT that the Assessing Officer had not conducted sufficient inquiry or verification regarding the Section 35D deduction. The revision direction by the PCIT was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are attracted to EDC paid by real estate developers to HUDA. The assessee was rightly treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS.
The Tribunal held that the return filed under Section 153A, which included the declared bullion, was valid. However, since the income was unearthed during search and its source was unexplained, the provisions of Section 69A and Section 115BBE were correctly applied.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground challenging the validity of assessments due to lack of proper Section 153D approval is admissible. Citing precedent, the Tribunal found that assessments made with a common or mechanical Section 153D approval, without due application of mind, are non-est in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were non-est in the eyes of law because separate Section 153D approvals were not obtained for each taxpayer and assessment year. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments that deemed such assessments invalid.
The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence and held that the AO had wrongly invoked sections 68 and 69. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the credits in question pertained to opening balances, sale proceeds of ESOPs taxed in prior years, and rental income from the USA, which was also taxed in the USA. The tribunal found no valid reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was a curable defect and the requirement was directory, not mandatory. Condoning the delay, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the benefit of Section 11 exemption to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) if he disagreed with the assessee's registered valuer's report. Using circle rates or L&DO conversion rates without a DVO report is not permissible under the Act.
The Tribunal noted the Assessee's submission and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application fails.
The Tribunal noted that the mistake of passing the assessment order in the wrong name was an innocuous one, covered by Section 292B of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the order of the First Appellate Authority was not based on a correct understanding of the facts.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee providing an email for service. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for denovo assessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to make submissions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It also set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessee did not appear before the lower authorities, leading to ex-parte orders. However, to ensure justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, directing the AO to provide an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that admitting additional evidence could render substantial justice. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, with liberty to the assessee to produce documents.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred by considering additional evidence produced by the assessee without calling for a Remand Report from the AO, thus violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
The ITAT found that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and did not decide all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of the loan amounts to the assessee's income. It found that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions with the creditors, thus not discharging the onus under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not provided an opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) passed orders in related cases, Explanation 3 to Section 153 of the Act was not attracted. Consequently, the normal limitation period under Section 149 applied, making the notice under Section 148 barred by limitation.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming a lump sum addition of Rs. 10 lakh and granting relief of Rs. 1.15 crore. It held that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions post-April 1, 2017, directing assessment under normal provisions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for depositing demonetized currency within two days of its declaration was bonafide. Since the deposits were part of business receipts already declared and accepted by the AO, the addition was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded.
The tribunal recognized the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three opportunities to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Revenue's counsel conceded the applicability of the CBDT Circular, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, to ensure justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A).
The tribunal recognized the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three opportunities to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked if tax has been deducted by the assessee, even under a bonafide wrong impression. The section applies only to non-deduction or non-payment of tax, not to shortfalls due to differences in opinion.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case back to the AO. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order (de novo) after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, with the assessee also directed to participate in the proceedings.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to pursue the appeal as the relief was granted by the Assessing Officer and a refund was received. The department had no objection to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of a predeceased assessee is invalid and cannot be validly served. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, are vitiated and unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, the profit element should be taxed. Considering industry norms and GST, the CIT(A)'s 20% GP addition was reasonable, but the Tribunal reduced it to 18% to reflect the profit element fairly.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to make submissions. The assessee was directed to respond to future notices without fail.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication, considering that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed ex-parte. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions.
The tribunal recognized the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three opportunities to present their case.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte and adjudicated on merits. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, explicitly refraining from commenting on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in Fox Network Group Singapore Pte. Ltd., which held that live telecast rights do not fall within the ambit of royalty. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention regarding the incorrect amount and procedural defects in the reassessment.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals related to the assessment orders had been remanded back to the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and the penalty matter, directing the AO to re-examine the imposition of penalties after giving effect to a previous Tribunal order.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals related to the assessment orders had been remanded back to the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and the penalty matter, directing the AO to re-examine the imposition of penalties after giving effect to a previous Tribunal order.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals related to the assessment orders had been remanded back to the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and the penalty matter, directing the AO to re-examine the imposition of penalties after giving effect to a previous Tribunal order.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's arguments supporting the CIT(A)/NFAC's remand directions. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee is free to raise all legal and factual submissions in the consequential proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merit.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without appreciating the facts and that the appeal was an exceptional attempt to seek justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get sufficient opportunity to produce documents and that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding all grounds on merit. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for a de-novo assessment, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity.
The Tribunal held that due to communication gaps and ineffective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, the assessee could not effectively plead its case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.