Loading ITAT cases…
918 orders · Page 11 of 19
The Tribunal held that the disallowance on delayed payments of employee's contribution to ESI/EPF has attained finality, having been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the assessee's case from ITO, Ward 39(4) to ITO, Ward 36(4), and subsequently to ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi, was not accompanied by a valid order under section 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assignment by the JCIT under section 120(5) was not a substitute for the mandatory requirement of section 127 for transferring jurisdiction. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd, the Tribunal concluded that without a valid order under section 127, the Assessing Officer in ITO, Ward 36(6), Delhi, did not acquire valid jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings initiated were quashed. The grounds raised by the assessee on the jurisdictional issue were allowed. Other grounds on merits were not adjudicated upon.
The Tribunal held that vehicle running expenses incurred for the benefit of employees and declared as perquisites were allowable. Similarly, club expenses, also treated as perquisites and supported by details, were allowed as a matter of commercial expediency.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval, being a common one for all assessment years, was not valid. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval, being a common one for all assessment years, was not valid. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The Tribunal found that the AO could not resort to ad-hoc disallowances without specific defects and that the insurance claim was not taxable as revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval, being a common one for all assessment years, was not valid. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval, being a common one for all assessment years, was not valid. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval, being a common one for all assessment years, was not valid. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval, being a common one for all assessment years, was not valid. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that a portion of the unexplained cash addition of Rs. 4.78 crores should be treated as a lumpsum Gross Profit addition at 10% (Rs. 15 lakhs) instead of the full amount. Additions related to stock and gold were directed to be assessed in the hands of M/s. HP & Sons, and the hedging loss was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval, being a common one for all assessment years, was not valid. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153D approval, being a common one for all assessment years, was not valid. Consequently, the assessments framed under Section 153A were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lemon Tree Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lemon Tree Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that technical aspects must not impede substantial justice and restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is given three opportunities to plead its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that communication gaps during virtual hearings and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order necessitated setting aside the order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee followed a standard accounting policy for lease equalization charges as per ICAI guidelines, which was declared in financial statements and regularly followed. Since this accounting method did not result in revenue loss and equalized tax effects over subsequent years, it should not be disturbed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. Grounds 1, 9, and 11 were general and not adjudicated. Grounds 2, 3, 7, and 8, relating to the initiation of proceedings under section 153C and DIN issues, were dismissed as not pressed. Regarding Grounds 4, 5, 6, and 10, the Tribunal noted that the proceedings under section 153C were initiated based on documents found during a search on Shri Ghanshyam Gupta. The AO made an addition of Rs. 12,55,00,000/- based on an agreement to sell land. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had cancelled the agreement with Shri Ghanshyam due to his attempt to make an extra gain and purchased the land directly from the farmers at the original agreed price. The Tribunal observed that the AO's presumption of cash payment was unsubstantiated by cogent material. The documents found at Shri Ghanshyam's premises were considered 'dead documents' as they were not acted upon. The Tribunal also referred to a jurisdictional High Court judgment and quashed the entire proceedings initiated under Section 153C r.w.s 153A of the Act in the absence of a valid approval granted by the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal also quashed proceedings initiated under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) in the absence of valid approval. The addition of Rs. 12,55,00,000/- was deleted as the transaction was found to be genuine.
The Tribunal held that a common approval obtained from the prescribed authority for multiple assessment years, as was the case here, vitiates the entire assessment. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a common approval obtained from the prescribed authority for multiple assessment years, as was the case here, vitiates the entire assessment. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a common approval obtained from the prescribed authority for multiple assessment years, as was the case here, vitiates the entire assessment. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a common approval obtained from the prescribed authority for multiple assessment years, as was the case here, vitiates the entire assessment. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a common approval obtained from the prescribed authority for multiple assessment years, as was the case here, vitiates the entire assessment. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that a common approval obtained from the prescribed authority for multiple assessment years, as was the case here, vitiates the entire assessment. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting an addition of Rs. 37,36,124/- as the source of cash withdrawal was found acceptable. The remaining addition of Rs. 32,63,876/- was confirmed but the tax rate was reduced.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, acknowledging that the document was obtained after the draft assessment order. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to verify the said document and decide the issue afresh, taking into account the additional materials.
The Tribunal held that the six-year period for issuing notice under Section 153C of the Act is calculated from the date of handing over of the material by the AO of the searched person. Since the satisfaction note was dated 18.04.2022, the six-year period would commence from FY 2022-23. Therefore, the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 fell beyond this period.
The Tribunal held that a revisionary order u/s 263 is not permissible if the assessment order was passed with prior approval u/s 153D, unless such approval is also examined and vitiated. Since the revenue did not provide evidence to distinguish the present case from prior judgments on this point, the revisionary order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that while Section 194I was not applicable to EDC payments, Section 194C was indeed applicable. The AO was directed to modify his order to apply Section 194C.
The Tribunal held that while Section 194I was not applicable to EDC payments, Section 194C was indeed applicable. The AO was directed to modify his order to apply Section 194C.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an AO without jurisdiction, and the subsequent assessment order was passed by another AO who did not assume jurisdiction by issuing a fresh notice. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the limitation for filing Form 10BB is advisory, not mandatory. Considering the Covid-19 situation and the CIT(A)'s findings, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order allowing the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal found that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was ambiguous due to the phrase 'as amended' and lacked clear evidence of application of mind. The Tribunal noted that the approval did not specifically mention the examination of electronic evidence or adherence to legal principles for their admissibility.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had issued circulars extending the time limit for filing Form 10AB. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not disallow LTCG merely based on a generic investigation report without conducting independent inquiries. The transactions were routed through banking channels and evidenced by contract notes and bank statements. The Tribunal noted that the AO's additions were based on conjectures and surmises, with no supporting evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the grounds of appeal were descriptive and narrative, violating Rule 8 of ITAT rules. The assessee failed to adduce evidence to defend its case.
The Tribunal, applying the principle of liberal condonation of delay, allowed the condonation for both the 167-day delay in filing the present appeal and the 135-day delay before the CIT(A). Recognizing that the Assessee did not participate in the first appellate proceedings, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, deeming the appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without hearing the Assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. The matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without hearing the Assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. The matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without hearing the Assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. The matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without hearing the Assessee and had not dealt with all grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without hearing the Assessee and had not dealt with all grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without hearing the Assessee and had not dealt with all grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 43,00,000/- was unsustainable due to a lack of cogent evidence. The assessee had provided an affidavit from Rajesh Kumar denying the transaction, and the Department had failed to prove the execution of the alleged agreement.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without hearing the Assessee and had not dealt with all grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without hearing the Assessee and had not dealt with all grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed various details before the CIT(A) to substantiate the source of cash deposits, including quantitative details of gold and silver ornaments, VAT returns, cash book details, and bills of cash sales. The assessee contended that these evidences were not appreciated by the lower authorities, who confirmed the additions based on presumption and assumption. The AO's main allegation was that the high volume of sales in October and November 2016 was contrary to average sales, leading to the disallowance of cash deposits. However, the AO accepted the declared trading results and did not invoke Section 145(3). The CIT(A) reproduced the AO's observations and the assessee's submissions but did not discuss the details filed by the assessee to support the claim that cash from sales between October 1, 2016, and November 8, 2016, was available as cash on hand when demonetization was announced. Observing that the assessee was not provided a fair and reasonable opportunity by the CIT(A) and that all details were not filed before the AO, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue after properly considering the assessee's submissions and necessary evidences, and the assessee must be provided sufficient opportunity to furnish documents and information. The issue of whether the cash deposits represented unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was not decided on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition. It was held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition as the transactions were supported by documents like contract notes, payments through banking channels, and through SEBI registered brokers, and that the company was not held as a shell company by SEBI or in previous assessment orders.