Loading ITAT cases…
684 orders · Page 3 of 14
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee's legal heir, citing the principle of substantial justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, with a directive to first decide the appellant's status as the legal representative.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding disallowances under Rule 8D and foreign travel expenses, finding them arbitrary or misconceived. However, it dismissed the additional grounds concerning the taxability of conditional grants, holding them to be enforceable obligations and not inchoate receipts.
The tribunal found that the NFAC did not examine the merits of the penalty levied under Section 270A in the context of the disallowance of sundry creditors. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment years in question did not fall within the block period of six assessment years as stipulated in Section 153C of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) had correctly considered the facts and decided that the assessments could not be made under Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice was issued by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, who, in light of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, did not have the jurisdiction to issue such a notice for a non-corporate return up to Rs. 15 lakhs. Therefore, the notice was considered without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not fully proven as genuine, a complete disallowance was not justified given the accepted sales. Therefore, a lumpsum disallowance of 10% of the disputed purchases was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 are beyond the six-year period permissible for reopening assessments from the date of recording of satisfaction. Therefore, the impugned assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding disallowances under Rule 8D and foreign travel expenses, finding them arbitrary or misconceived. However, it dismissed the additional grounds concerning the taxability of conditional grants, holding them to be enforceable obligations and not inchoate receipts.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer to proceed afresh after verifying necessary facts and evidence. This was done in the interest of justice due to the lack of proper legal representation for the deceased assessee.
The Tribunal held that the entertainment tax subsidy is a capital receipt, leasehold improvement expenses are justifiable for capitalization, and disallowances under Section 14A were correctly computed. Similarly, bank charges were not subject to TDS, and provisions for gratuity, leave encashment, and bonus were ascertained liabilities for MAT computation.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment and direct a fresh assessment was just and proper, considering the violation of natural justice. The Revenue's appeal lacked merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are eligible for the full leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA) up to the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000. This decision was based on a recent revision of the exemption limit by the CBDT and a Delhi High Court observation regarding the inadequacy of the previous limit.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was not speaking and lacked clear facts. It also observed that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasoned finding. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one last opportunity to present its case and evidence to the AO. The DR concurred with setting aside the matter for readjudication.
The tribunal held that while the business activity and allowability of the expenses in principle were not disputed, the assessee failed to prove the claims with necessary evidence. Consequently, a 5% lumpsum disallowance was deemed appropriate for both expenses.
The Tribunal held that the common approval granted for multiple cases and assessment years, as in this instance, is not valid under Section 153D of the Act. Such approval must be accorded separately for each assessment year.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard and to provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded incorrect reasons for reopening the assessment, as the assessee had indeed filed its ITR. The reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind by the AO. Therefore, the entire assessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the addition made was on account of 'liability' and not an 'undisclosed asset' valued at Rs. 50 Lakhs or more, which is a condition for extending the reopening period beyond 6 years under the fourth proviso to Section 153A of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the investment doubted was Rs. 46,80,000/-, which is below the threshold of Rs. 50 Lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the assessees are eligible for the full leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA) up to the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000. This decision was based on a recent revision of the exemption limit by the CBDT and a Delhi High Court observation regarding the inadequacy of the previous limit.
The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A)/NFAC might be due to communication gaps with the faceless system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the impugned sum of Rs.25 lakhs was received from M/s. Sirsa Deposits and Advance Ltd. and its repayment in the subsequent year was not a matter under section 69, as the source of the loan was not questioned. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions and deleted both additions.
The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 are beyond the six-year period permissible for reopening assessments from the date of recording of satisfaction. Therefore, the impugned assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal, relying on the principle of substantial justice over technicalities, restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to prove their case at their own risk.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as the assessee had not derived any actual exempt income in the relevant assessment year. Reliance was placed on the decision in Cheminvest Limited Vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction and failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act within the statutory time limit. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide material linking the assessee to dubious transactions or price rigging, and relied on the concept of human probabilities without cogent evidence. Following co-ordinate bench and High Court decisions, the Tribunal found no material to substantiate the addition.
The Tribunal held that the entertainment tax subsidy is a capital receipt, leasehold improvement expenses are justifiable for capitalization, and disallowances under Section 14A were correctly computed. Similarly, bank charges were not subject to TDS, and provisions for gratuity, leave encashment, and bonus were ascertained liabilities for MAT computation.
The Tribunal held that the assessment years in question did not fall within the block period of six assessment years as stipulated in Section 153C of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) had correctly considered the facts and decided that the assessments could not be made under Section 153C.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and the NFAC dismissed the appeal for lack of substantiating documents. However, the Ld. AR demonstrated that expenditures were duly substantiated by bills. The Tribunal set aside the issues on merits to the AO for fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's quantum appeal was allowed and the matter was sent back for a fresh assessment, during which no addition was made. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for the penalty imposed on the original assessment order.
The tribunal held that the compliance of filing/uploading Form 10IE is a directory, not a mandatory, provision. The tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground that procedural lapses should not override substantive rights, especially when no malafide intent is established.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 67 before the due date of filing the return is directory and not mandatory. Since the form was filed before the completion of assessment and the relevant rules do not prescribe disallowance for delayed filing, the assessee is eligible for FTC.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act, considering the impact of Supreme Court decisions like Rajeev Bansal and Ashish Agarwal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, aligning with previous decisions. It also ruled that the charging of interest under Section 234B is mandatory and that challenges to penalty proceedings at this stage are premature.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to give the Revenue an opportunity to rebut additional evidences furnished by the assessee, and a remand report was not called for. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for a fresh opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee presented some evidence in the paper book, it was not filed before the lower authorities. To ensure justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to file additional evidence before the CIT(A) for consideration.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A for unabated assessment years can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search from the assessee's possession. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the additions made based on third-party information.
The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, aligning with previous decisions. It also ruled that the charging of interest under Section 234B is mandatory and that challenges to penalty proceedings at this stage are premature.
The tribunal deleted the addition related to KCC loan repayment. For the remaining agricultural deposits, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was made, providing partial relief to the assessee. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be done under normal provisions.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the virtual hearing mechanism. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was quashed due to error in exercising jurisdiction, the penalty under Section 270A cannot survive. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of regular business activity, acknowledging that the cash deposits, while not fully reconciled, could not be entirely disregarded. Consequently, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed just and proper, providing the assessee relief on the remaining amount. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be made under normal provisions as the section was effective from April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act, considering the impact of Supreme Court decisions like Rajeev Bansal and Ashish Agarwal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed by the FAA on the grounds of non-representation without adjudicating on the merits or legal grounds. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues on merits and law back to the files of the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed under Section 147 and the lower appellate authority heard the matter in the absence of the assessee, and the crucial legal ground raised by the assessee was not decided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should examine the issue of whether religious activities were actually carried out, and not deny registration solely based on the Memorandum of Association if the assessee's activities are charitable. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and the issue was restored to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, aligning with previous decisions. It also ruled that the charging of interest under Section 234B is mandatory and that challenges to penalty proceedings at this stage are premature.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A for unabated assessment years can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search from the assessee's possession. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the additions made based on third-party information.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act to a deceased person is a substantive illegality and is invalid in the eyes of law. Therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings are vitiated.