Loading ITAT cases…
684 orders · Page 6 of 14
The Tribunal held that the addition was based on conjectures and surmises without evidence linking the assessee to price rigging. Since transactions were through banking channels and Demat accounts, the assessee's claim of long-term capital gains exemption was valid.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are contractual payments for maintenance services and not rent for premises. Therefore, TDS was deductible under Section 194C, not Section 1941. The Delhi High Court's decision on this matter was considered settled.
The tribunal held that the disallowance of indirect expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not sustainable due to lack of proper examination by the AO and relied on previous ITAT and High Court decisions. Issues related to a grant/subsidy and a differential sum were remanded to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable as they were initiated merely on a 'change of opinion' by the AO, who had already examined and accepted the purchases in the original assessment. The Tribunal also noted the ambiguity in the reasons for reopening regarding the parties involved.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by changing the order based on a subsequent court decision during rectification proceedings. A subsequent decision cannot be used to rectify a mistake apparent on the face of the record in the original order.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on an estimation basis. Citing various judicial precedents, it was observed that a penalty under Section 270A on an estimated addition is not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was primarily because the tax effect involved was less than the minimum threshold stipulated in the latest CBDT circular for filing appeals.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was illegal, as the assessee had applied its funds in accordance with its objects and through agreements with other organizations, not as donation without specific utilization instructions. The CIT(A) had failed to appreciate the documents and evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 by the Assessing Officer was contrary to Section 151A of the Act. This was based on binding precedents from the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details of subscribers, genuineness of transactions, and creditworthiness. The Assessing Officer failed to discharge the subsequent onus to prove the explanation was unsatisfactory, thus the addition under Section 68 was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that pendency of litigation before the Supreme Court, without a stay of operation, does not warrant postponement of the hearing. The grounds of appeal were found to be devoid of merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for not filing the return of income due to severe stress from her daughter's matrimonial issues constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271F was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of accounts or doubt the sales. The assessee requested the application of three years' gross profit on sales. In the interest of justice, the orders of both lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had examined the merits of the case due to lack of details. The assessee submitted these details before the Tribunal and thus, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the cause reasonable. The Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the assessee and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and did not decide the issues on merit or jurisdiction, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution without adjudicating the merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in haste, mechanically, and in grave violation of principles of natural justice. The AO failed to consider the submissions of the assessee and passed the order before the date fixed for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must demonstrate application of mind and cannot be granted mechanically. Since the approval in this case was found to be non-application of mind, it was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases before the AO, the CIT(Appeals), and even before the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was sustained.
The Tribunal held that for proceedings under section 153C against a third party, the relevant date for determining the period is the date of handing over of records to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not the date of search. Since this date (15.09.2022) did not cover assessment year 2012-13, the proceedings were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter and must decide on merits by passing a speaking order. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and that the rejection of registration was not justified. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the notices issued u/s 148 for A.Ys 2012-13 and 2013-14 were beyond the ten-year period prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, making them time-barred. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable as they were initiated merely on a 'change of opinion' by the AO, who had already examined and accepted the purchases in the original assessment. The Tribunal also noted the ambiguity in the reasons for reopening regarding the parties involved.
The Tribunal held that the block period for assessment under Section 153C is determined by the date of receipt of seized books of account, documents, or assets by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not the date of the search. The assessment year 2011-12 falls outside the applicable six/ten year block.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was unsustainable in law. This was primarily because the PCIT invoked Explanation 2 to Section 263 without issuing a show cause notice to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits from withdrawals made in June 2016 (Rs. 10,00,000/-) were acceptable, but withdrawals from September 2015 held for over a year without plausible reason were not. The application of Section 115BBE was also found to be incorrect for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind, violating the provisions of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the customer acquisition costs were incurred in the routine course of business and were not of an enduring nature, thus qualifying as revenue expenditure. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices was not sustainable, as notices were uploaded on the ITBA portal and also sent to the assessee's parents' address. The assessee's reliance on a CA was also noted as a contributing factor to the non-compliance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind, violating the provisions of the Act.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the eligibility for Section 10AA benefit was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. For Section 80G, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the necessary documentation and compliance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without allowing the AO a reasonable opportunity to examine the documents under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The matter was remitted back to the AO for proper examination of evidence and fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the eligibility for Section 10AA benefit was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. For Section 80G, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the necessary documentation and compliance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the eligibility for Section 10AA benefit was covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. For Section 80G, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the necessary documentation and compliance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 and the order u/s 148A(d) were invalid and void ab initio because the approval for reopening the assessment was obtained from an incompetent authority. This was in violation of Section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act, as interpreted by the Delhi High Court in the Ashok Makhija case.
The Tribunal held that prior approval under Section 153D was not required for the assessment order passed pursuant to a remand, following a non-jurisdictional High Court decision. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the advance, leading to the confirmation of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on incorrect findings of fact and without proper verification or independent inquiry by the AO. The AO's satisfaction was based on vague information and showed a non-application of mind, making the entire proceeding vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to appreciate the nature of cash sales from the business and the demonetization period's extraordinary circumstances. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding contra entries to meet OD limits was ignored and that the AO's objections were baseless, especially since the assessee's books of accounts were accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of additional depreciation had been settled in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years, and the Revenue had not placed any material to demonstrate differences or show that prior decisions were set aside or overruled.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148, issued on 30.07.2022, was beyond the permissible time limit for AY 2013-14, making the reassessment proceedings void-ab-initio. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was infructuous and bad in law because it failed to specify the limb for imposing the penalty. Consequently, the penalty order, which was based on this notice, was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and that the rejection of registration was not justified. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of bogus purchases was to be deleted as the assessee claimed no such purchases were made. The addition on account of unexplained cash was also directed to be deleted as the assessee had maintained books of accounts and provided explanations, and the AO failed to rebut them.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding that the sales promotion expenses were genuine business expenses incurred for commercial expediency. The Tribunal also noted that similar expenses were allowed in the case of the assessee's holding company.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued u/s 148 for A.Ys 2012-13 and 2013-14 were beyond the ten-year period prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, making them time-barred. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the assessee's reasons reasonable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed without proper service of notice u/s.148 of the Act is without jurisdiction. The Revenue failed to provide material evidence to controvert the assessee's argument that the notice was not served.