Loading ITAT cases…
840 orders · Page 10 of 17
The Tribunal held that the issues raised in the appeals were covered by the Special Bench decision in DCIT vs. Total Oil India (P.) Ltd. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the issues raised in the appeals were covered by the Special Bench decision in DCIT vs. Total Oil India (P.) Ltd. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the additional claim for ESOP expenses was covered by a Co-ordinate Bench's order, which had remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification. Similarly, the issue of carry forward of MAT credit was also remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal considered that communication gaps might have occurred and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the non-submission of Form 10 due to a technical glitch was a technical and venial breach, not indicative of mala fide intention. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to consider Form 10 and re-compute the income.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessment years and assessees, and without proper application of mind. Therefore, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical, without due application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings void ab initio. The assessments were quashed on this ground.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without entering into the merits of the issues. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and decision on the grounds raised.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical, without due application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings void ab initio. The assessments were quashed on this ground.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive notice, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass an order on merit after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for decision on merits. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the AO to verify the documents furnished by the assessee. If the assessee substantiates their contentions with documentary evidence, the AO shall delete the remaining additions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to file submissions.
The Tribunal held that tax authorities should be considerate in condoning delays, especially when based on non-service of notices, which is verifiable from records. The NFAC's refusal to condone the delay without substantial rebuttal was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed on a wrongful assumption and incorrect facts, as the assessee had not approached for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The dismissal of the appeal was therefore considered erroneous.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard by the CIT(E). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee and that not all grounds of appeal were decided on merits. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee and that not all grounds of appeal were decided on merits. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and therefore remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the additional ground regarding the validity of the notice u/s 143(2) and the jurisdiction of the AO was not sustainable. However, regarding the main issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently proved the source of cash deposits from cash sales, supported by detailed records and accepted by the AO. The addition made by the AO was considered a double addition as cash sales were already part of the accepted income.
The tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording a proper hearing.
The tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on factually incorrect reasons and lacked proper application of mind. The reasons recorded by the AO were vague and inconsistent with the facts on record, rendering the reopening invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition as the assessee failed to establish the identity of the debtors and the claim of realization from old debtors was not supported by the opening balance of debtors shown in previous returns. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was restored.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested a remand back to the CIT(A) due to unavoidable reasons for not responding to notices. To provide natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to pass an order on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan from Baldev Promoters Pvt. Ltd. by providing sufficient evidence, and thus deleted the addition of INR 90 Lakhs. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of Shri Raju Khan for the loan of INR 25 Lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid because the incriminating material was not found from the assessee's possession during the search. The assessment should have been made under Section 153C, as the documents pertained to a third party.
The Tribunal held that the services were managerial in nature and did not meet the 'make available' condition for FTS under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
On the first issue concerning Section 14A, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had suo motu disallowed Rs. 49,51,789/- based on a Chartered Accountant's certificate and prior ITAT orders. The AO made a further disallowance of Rs. 17,09,49,711/- by invoking Rule 8D. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's grounds, did not provide a specific finding on the Section 14A disallowance in the provided text. However, the final result indicates the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, suggesting some relief on this issue. On the second issue regarding the surcharge on delayed payments, the Tribunal, following the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in CIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and a Co-ordinate Bench decision, held that the surcharge, being an unrealized and disputable item, does not constitute taxable income until realized. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made on account of unrealized surcharge but to verify the year in which such surcharge income is realized and offered to tax. The revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessment years and assessees, and without proper application of mind. Therefore, the assessment orders were vitiated.
The tribunal held that the rectification order for disallowing excess depreciation was not based on apparent mistakes but on an audit objection, and such issues were debatable, thus Section 154 was wrongly invoked. For AY 2016-17, the reopening notice was vitiated due to incorrect information and non-application of mind by the competent authority.
The tribunal held that the rectification order for disallowing excess depreciation was not based on apparent mistakes but on an audit objection, and such issues were debatable, thus Section 154 was wrongly invoked. For AY 2016-17, the reopening notice was vitiated due to incorrect information and non-application of mind by the competent authority.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was in judicial custody during the assessment and appeal proceedings, preventing him from appearing before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 were barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's stance in the Rajeev Bansal case where the Revenue conceded that such notices would have to be dropped. Therefore, the assessment order was annulled.
The Tribunal held that since the reassessment was initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the sanctioning authority should have been the PCCIT as per Section 151 of the Act. Obtaining sanction from the PCIT was deemed incorrect and therefore, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical, without due application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings void ab initio. The assessments were quashed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the additions were based on a notional income from a claim made by the assessee that was not acted upon by the other party. Since CPRPL had neither paid nor provided for the commission and interest, taxing it as income was unwarranted.
The tribunal held that the rectification order for disallowing excess depreciation was not based on apparent mistakes but on an audit objection, and such issues were debatable, thus Section 154 was wrongly invoked. For AY 2016-17, the reopening notice was vitiated due to incorrect information and non-application of mind by the competent authority.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 148B was indeed mechanical and without application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for six assessees. Following a coordinate bench's decision on similar grounds, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal found merit in the submission regarding communication gaps, especially with the introduction of virtual hearings. The Tribunal also noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the facts and consider the assessee's claim after verifying when the surcharge income was realized and offered to tax.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with the defects pointed out in the memo, including the delay in filing and the deficiency in appeal fee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed filed Form 10IC within the extended due date of June 30, 2022, as per CBDT Circular No. 6/2022. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the concessional tax regime.
The Tribunal found that the assessee, running a petrol pump with an audited turnover, had provided evidence for cash deposits. While not entirely satisfactory to the lower authorities, it was deemed inappropriate to add the entire amount as unexplained. A lump sum addition of Rs.2,00,000/- was considered just and proper.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 11 lakhs, finding the assessee's explanation of redepositing withdrawn cash credible. However, for the remaining Rs. 35.75 lakhs, the issue was remitted to the AO for verification due to unclear evidence of withdrawals from previous years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the assessee's plea and made the rectification in the order passed u/s 143(1). The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable by relying on a distinguishable case. The apparent mistake was evident and the AO failed to act upon it.
The Tribunal held that the Revisional Authority, without conducting further inquiry or appreciating further material, had given a finding that the assessment order was prejudicial. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was not sustainable under law as the Revisional Authority had not sufficiently demonstrated that the AO's inquiry was inadequate.
The Tribunal held that the reduction of shares constituted a transfer of a capital asset under Section 2(47) of the Act. Regarding the applicability of Section 50CA, the Tribunal noted that Rule 11UAA mandates that for the purpose of Section 50CA, the FMV of unquoted shares shall be determined in the manner provided in Rule 11UA(1)(b) or (c), and the valuation date shall be the date of transfer. The AO erred by adopting the FMV as on 31.03.2017 instead of the date of transfer, 20.11.2017. The assessee had submitted a valuation report as of the date of transfer, valuing the shares at Rs.10.09 per share. Since this FMV was not less than the actual consideration received by the assessee (Rs.10.09 per share), the provisions of Section 50CA were not applicable. The Tribunal found the AO's method of valuation to be wrong and contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. The Tribunal also observed that the shares were purchased in the secondary market in 2013 and declared in the balance sheet, and the share reduction was approved by the NCLT due to business exigencies. Therefore, there was no tax avoidance arrangement. The dividend income issue was not under dispute as DDT was paid. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the rejection of additional evidences was a technical breach and that they ought to have been admitted in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed the NFAC to admit the evidences and decide the issues afresh.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to ascertain the sufficient cause for the delay and thereafter decide the appeal on merits if admitted. The assessee was directed to explain the delay.