Loading ITAT cases…
891 orders · Page 9 of 18
The Tribunal condoned the assessee's mistake in ticking the wrong exemption in the Income Tax Return in the interest of justice. The assessing authority was directed to finalize a fresh computation after verifying the facts.
The Tribunal held that a mechanical approval for reopening, as seen in this case, vitiates the entire reopening process. Therefore, the reopening was quashed based on the invalidity of the approval under Section 151 of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte, and there might have been communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. This was due to potential communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.
The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing a debatable issue under Section 143(1) processing. Such issues should be dealt with under Section 143(3). The disallowance made under Section 143(1) was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously held that unregistered trusts are assessable as AOP/individuals entitled to statutory exemptions, not at the maximum marginal rate. Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed a fresh computation.
The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte, and the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds on merits. Therefore, to ensure justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the assessment order already completed a regular assessment under Section 143(3) and the reasons for reopening did not indicate non-disclosure by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular regarding the minimum tax effect was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rejected on this specific ground.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening, which was a mechanical acceptance of the Assessing Officer's proposal, vitiated the entire reopening process. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
Considering the ex-parte proceedings at the CIT(A)/NFAC level and the possibility of communication gaps in faceless hearings, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given three effective opportunities to present its case.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation was not fully satisfactory, a complete disallowance was not justified. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, providing relief of Rs. 27,29,280/- to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the virtual hearing mechanism and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year had been remanded to the CIT(A) by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the Tribunal also remanded the penalty appeal to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, 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 held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible thought process. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that since there was no computation of taxable income and no tax payable, the question of advance tax payable did not arise. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 249(4) of the Act. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary documents and decide the application on its merit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary documents and decide the application on its merit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee should have been given an opportunity to produce documents and have the application decided on merit, as it claimed to be conducting charitable activities.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee should have been given an opportunity to produce documents and have the application decided on merit, as it claimed to be conducting charitable activities.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Relying on various precedents, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's legal ground.
The Tribunal held that the interconnectivity usage charges received by the assessee are not taxable in India. These services were provided without human intervention, thus not falling under FTS. Furthermore, the income was considered business income covered under Article 7 of the India-Oman DTAA and not taxable in India as the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible thought process. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration. The assessee was granted liberty to furnish all necessary details, and the CIT(E) was directed to dispose of the application for registration afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable as the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were not doubted by the Revenue. Since the sale transaction was disputed and not concluded in the year under appeal, the amount received as advance could not be treated as an undisclosed credit.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, holding that no incriminating material was unearthed during the search concerning the assessee's closed assessment year. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that additions under Section 153A require incriminating material for unabated assessments.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is discovered during the assessee's own search. Since the seized material was from a search of a third party (the Entry Operator) and not the assessees themselves, the additions were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible thought process. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the structures were temporary and essential for completing the contractual obligation, and the assessee was entitled to 100% depreciation on these temporary structures. The case law supported this view.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 dated 18.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation, as per recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the applicability of TOLA. Consequently, the reassessment order is bad in law and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) disallowance is not absolute and business exigencies are to be considered. Since the genuineness of the payment was not doubted and the cash payment was made due to the insistence of the intermediary company, it was considered a business exigency. Therefore, the disallowance was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investor by providing bank statements and other relevant documents. The Tribunal also found that the AO had made an ad hoc disallowance of travelling expenses without rejecting the books of account.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on a prior Tribunal order, and the Department did not provide evidence that this order was challenged or stayed by the High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal held that POS machines and SAP licenses are eligible for depreciation at a higher rate, aligning with High Court decisions. Regarding bad debts, the Tribunal allowed the unrecoverable subsidy as bad debts, irrespective of whether it was booked in the current or earlier years, as long as it was not recoverable.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on a prior Tribunal order, and the Department did not provide evidence that this order was challenged or stayed by the High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay of 589 days without considering the substantial justice aspect. Citing Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal emphasized that all technical aspects must yield to the cause of substantial justice. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to provide three effective opportunities for the assessee to plead and prove their case, with the rider that the taxpayer shall do so at their own risk and responsibility. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits of Rs. 14.08 lakhs made in the assessee's joint bank account were not to be treated as unexplained under section 68 of the Act. The reasoning was based on the fact that an assessment order for the same assessment year and concerning the same joint bank account had already been passed in the name of the assessee's father, Sh. Gandhi Rahul Ashok, wherein these very cash deposits were examined and treated as duly explained. The Tribunal found this to be a clinching case, indicating that the addition made in the assessee's hands was without merit as the deposits were already explained in the hands of her father. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition. The issue of delay in filing the appeal was condoned in the larger interest of justice, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others.
The Tribunal held that the impugned reopening was not sustainable. The lower authorities had not made any addition based on the reasons for reopening. Therefore, the reopening itself was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not sustainable if the assessee has not declared any exempt income. Relying on Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT (2015) and noting the prospective effect of the Finance Act, 2021 amendment to Section 14A, the tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), stating that once the foundational order under Section 263 was set aside, the consequential assessment proceedings were vitiated and therefore non-est.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and vitiated the entire reopening process. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of funds for the property investment, including payments from outside India and through a housing loan. The Tribunal also accepted that certain payments were made in a prior financial year and thus not relevant for the current assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless system, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.