Loading ITAT cases…
873 orders · Page 12 of 18
The Tribunal held that technical aspects should yield to substantial justice, referencing the Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others case. The assessee's appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had acknowledged the assessee's agricultural activities and potato produce. Despite the cash deposits not being fully reconciled, the Tribunal held that they represented agricultural income up to Rs.1 lakh.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay of 1 day in filing the assessee's appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in 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. The reasoning was that the delay was minimal (1 day) and the assessee had provided reasons beyond his control. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on its merits. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide three effective opportunities for the taxpayer to plead and prove their case, subject to the taxpayer bearing the risk and responsibility for the consequential proceedings. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, referencing the Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors case and the COVID-19 pandemic period. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that changing the head of addition in lower appellate proceedings is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the CIT(A)/NFAC's findings were reversed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal, citing the larger interest of justice and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps at various levels, as submitted by the assessee. Consequently, in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant, at the appellant's risk and responsibility, for consequential proceedings. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. It was of the considered view that given the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)/NFAC's order, communication gaps between the taxpayer and counsel, especially with the newly introduced faceless hearing system, could not be ruled out. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide three effective opportunities for the assessee to plead and prove its case, with the rider that the taxpayer would do so at its own risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the lower appellate authority failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and did not frame points of determination as required. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the lower authority for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IC. It was decided that the requirement to file the audit report along with the return is directory, not mandatory, and filing it before the assessment completion fulfills the requirement.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under VSVS. It granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeals should the VSVS application fail to mature, with a provision to waive condonation of delay for such restoration applications.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, acknowledging the settlement under VSVS. It granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeals should the VSVS application fail to mature, with a provision to waive condonation of delay for such restoration applications.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 3,50,894/- to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/-, allowing a lump sum relief of Rs. 50,804/- on estimation basis for expenditure. The assessee's role as an accommodation entry provider was established by seized documents and statements.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee claimed substantial compliance, some additional documents were not submitted due to lack of knowledge. In the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee failed to submit all required documents due to lack of knowledge of procedural requirements. Considering this, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that it was an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the NFAC, the assessee did not file submissions before that authority, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance. The assessee argued that the NFAC order was passed without being heard. The Tribunal, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, decided to restore the issue to the file of the NFAC. A direction was given to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantively present its claim and for the NFAC to decide the issue based on facts and law. The assessee was also directed to appear before the NFAC and cooperate. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The specific findings on the merits of the additions were not made as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross objections. It held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective for not specifying the limb under which penalty was initiated. Consequently, the penalty was quashed for AY 2010-11 and other AYs. For AY 2006-07, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not sustained.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross objections. It held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective for not specifying the limb under which penalty was initiated. Consequently, the penalty was quashed for AY 2010-11 and other AYs. For AY 2006-07, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were from cash sales which were duly recorded in the audited books of account and were not rebutted by the AO. The addition made under Section 68 was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) must be read with Rule 6DD and that genuine and bona fide transactions should not be excluded. It was found that the identity of the vendor was established and the cash payments were made due to business expediency, as the seller was not allowing stock lifting without payment.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a 'change of opinion' and borrowed satisfaction from the audit party, without proper application of mind by the AO. The objections of the assessee were not disposed of by a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot invoke Section 68 or 69A when the assessee has already declared the source of cash deposits in its books. The lower authorities erred in making additions without sufficient material to support their contrary view.
The Tribunal noted that the issue was a legacy issue and referred to a jurisdictional High Court decision on a similar matter. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined whether the provisions made by the assessee constituted 'expenditure'. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a factual finding.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of the donation made through banking channels, and the party's denial and allegations of fraud were not conclusively proven. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Revenue was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of the audit report was a procedural formality. The AO should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to cure this defect before finalizing the assessment. The Tribunal directed the AO to rectify the defect and grant the benefit of exemption.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross objections. It held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective for not specifying the limb under which penalty was initiated. Consequently, the penalty was quashed for AY 2010-11 and other AYs. For AY 2006-07, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were applicable to the loan advanced. It also noted that the assessee's argument regarding exemption under Section 10(34) was based on the premise that the company had paid taxes, which was not established. The Tribunal did not delve into the accumulated profits argument in detail in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross objections. It held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective for not specifying the limb under which penalty was initiated. Consequently, the penalty was quashed for AY 2010-11 and other AYs. For AY 2006-07, the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not sustained.
The Tribunal noted the application for withdrawal of the appeal filed by the assessee. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO. The primary issue was the AO's rejection of the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, chosen by the assessee as per Rule 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and the imposition of the Net Asset Value (NAV) method. The Tribunal found that Rule 11UA(2) clearly grants the assessee the option to choose the method of valuation. The AO's rejection of the DCF method was not sustainable because the valuer had explained the basis for her presumptions, supported by data. The Tribunal noted that the AO used only parts of the valuer's statement, which is not a sound practice. The objection that the valuation was based on a best-case business scenario was also dismissed, as companies typically value shares at their maximum potential. The Tribunal also found no fault in the valuer relying on data provided by the management, as this is standard practice, provided it is supported by authentic documents. The AO did not doubt the genuineness of the investment source, and there was no apparent motive for artificial inflation of share premium. The Tribunal emphasized that the NAV method does not account for intangible market aspects like competition, technology, and management quality, which the DCF method does. The AO is not expected to reject a valuation method unless there is something patently wrong with it, which was not the case here. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition, following jurisdictional High Court judgments. The revenue failed to bring contrary material to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings. Therefore, the AO could not change the method of valuation chosen by the assessee. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the AO cannot change the valuation method chosen by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO's rejection of the DCF method and adoption of the NAV method was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio because the jurisdictional AO in Gurgaon had not issued a notice under Section 143(2) after the case records were transferred from Dibrugarh. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. The Judicial Member, speaking for the bench, noted that the assessee's contention regarding the mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act was unrebutted by the revenue. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC), the Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings. Consequently, all other pleadings on merits were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed, and the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO lacked substance as the NFAC had allowed the assessee's appeal based on the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also noted that a similar appeal for a prior year concerning the same investors had been dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained regular books of accounts duly audited by a Chartered Accountant, and these were not rejected by the AO. The cash book was also provided and showed no discrepancies. The nature of the assessee's business justified holding cash, and therefore, the addition based on bald assumptions was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted that there was no exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The CIT(A) had followed a High Court decision in favour of the assessee. Since the Revenue could not present any contrary facts or law, the findings of the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessment year 2011-12 was beyond the 10-year period from the date of satisfaction for section 153C. They also noted that the section 153D approval obtained was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the circumstances and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal further found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard and without deciding all grounds on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the Assessee had proved the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders was not controverted by the Department. The credit entries from the lenders' bank accounts were found to be flowing from the savings of Shri R. P. Tulsian.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeal was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, making it liable for dismissal under CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The Tribunal dismissed both the appeal and the cross objection.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was vague and lacked specificity regarding incriminating material belonging to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. The documents relied upon were found to be collaboration agreements from 2006, not incriminating for AY 2014-15, and some were in the name of another entity.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee had filed an application u/s 154 of the Act, which was allowed by the CPC, rectifying the mistake by levying the correct surcharge rate. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was liable to be set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the substantive provisions of filing Form 10BB within the extended due date. The delay in accepting the auditor's report was a procedural defect that was rectified later. Therefore, the benefit of Sections 11 & 12 of the Act could not be denied.
The Tribunal held that a deposit of Rs. 33,60,000 in one account belonged to the assessee's mother and was duly declared in her ITR and was out of her business sales. The remaining deposits of Rs. 12,43,500 were explained as being out of the assessee's declared cash sales from their business. Therefore, the additions under Section 69A were deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- made by the CIT(A) as unexplained expenditure. The assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the shortage of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the declared cash possessed.
The Tribunal held that the impugned assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on 30 December 2018 is a non-est one in the eyes of law on both counts. Firstly, regarding the validity of the section 153D approval, the Tribunal found that there was no separate approval for the assessment year 2017-18. A common approval for multiple persons and multiple assessment years, without the prescribed authority properly applying its mind, was held to be not a substantive compliance with section 153D. The Tribunal relied on several High Court and Supreme Court judgments, including ACIT Vs. Serajuddin and Co. and PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal, which held that such mechanical exercise of approval is invalid. Secondly, concerning the absence of section 148 or section 153C proceedings, the Tribunal held that since documents belonging to the assessee were seized during a search, the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded under a regular section 143(3) assessment for the year of search without initiating either section 148 reopening or section 153C proceedings. The Tribunal cited PCIT Vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta, which indicated that section 148 proceedings could be initiated in such instances. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment on this ground as well. All other pleadings were rendered academic.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12, as they were self-explanatory and the CIT-DR had no objection. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12, as they were self-explanatory and the CIT-DR had no objection. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12, as they were self-explanatory and the CIT-DR had no objection. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12, as they were self-explanatory and the CIT-DR had no objection. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.