Loading ITAT cases…
840 orders · Page 11 of 17
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, it did not provide any findings on merit. Therefore, to uphold natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under Section 147 was bad in law. The AO failed to apply his mind to the assessee's objections and the discrepancy in Form 26AS, and did not consider the exemption under Section 115A(5).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee adequately explained the difference in purchase values by attributing it to notional charges. For import duty, the Tribunal agreed that since the assessee had received reimbursement and credited commission income, disallowance was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be deleted at the appellate stage without factually countering the AO's reasons. The CIT(A)'s findings were considered too general. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the issue on merit. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment with an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as prayed by the assessee.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance under Section 14A based on investments yielding exempt income. It dismissed the appeal regarding club membership fees, holding them as capital expenditure. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify the inclusion of custom duty in purchases.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the issue ex-parte without considering the merits. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
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 interest component of land acquisition compensation is not taxable, referencing several High Court judgments. The action of the lower authorities in holding this income as taxable was reversed.
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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the additional ground. It held that the approval obtained under Section 151 of the Act was mechanical and granted without proper application of mind, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.
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 AO failed to establish that the seized documents belonged to or pertained to the assessee. The seized documents and transactions were already accounted for by the Antriksh Group, making the satisfaction note factually incorrect and the additions baseless.
The Tribunal found that there was no compliance or written submission from the assessee before the CIT, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT which was against natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT for a fresh opportunity to the assessee.
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 Tribunal quashed the assessments.
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 held that the CIT(E) did not give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and cryptically brushed aside the assessee's reply. The rejection of applications was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence was rejected by the CIT(A) on technical grounds, which did not serve substantive justice. The CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence, especially given the assessee's background and the nature of the investments.
The Tribunal held that Section 70 of the Income Tax Act allows set off of capital losses against capital gains under the same head ('Income from Capital Gains'), irrespective of the tax rates applicable. Therefore, the disallowance by the CPC and CIT(A) was incorrect.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal considering the minor delay and substantial cause of justice. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's adjournment petition, proceeding ex-parte. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issue of re-opening and the additions made on account of bogus purchases after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found a mismatch between Form 16 and 26AS regarding income. It held that the credit card expenses were within the assessee's means, given the high salary. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A), holding that the cash deposits were explained as being out of genuine cash sales. The AO had accepted the cash sales as genuine in his Remand Report after examining the submitted documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and cryptically brushed aside the assessee's reply. The rejection of applications was not justified.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits, as the dispute was not settled under the DTVSVS. The assessee was allowed for statistical purpose.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' rejection of the assessee's claim that purchases from M/s Parth International were genuine, considering them as accommodation entries. However, the Tribunal found the gross profit estimations by both the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC to be too high.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances made were not instances of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal noted that quantum and penalty are separate proceedings and disallowances do not automatically lead to penalties.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence, as the AO failed to provide a remand report. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan transaction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting a reasonable cause due to the pending rectification application and the CIT(A)'s failure to consider the assessee's submissions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision.
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and noted that the AR did not provide material to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings. Issues remanded back to the AO for verification were also deemed justified.
The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is an accretion to the value and part of the enhanced compensation, and not taxable as income from other sources, following Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal restored the issue of carry forward of business losses to the AO for verification, allowing it for statistical purposes. The issues of bad debts and Section 115JB were also set aside to the AO for adjudication. The Revenue's grounds regarding Section 14A, Rule 37BA(2), and carried forward long-term capital loss were decided against the Revenue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. For the addition, the Tribunal upheld the AO's invocation of Section 145(3) but directed an estimation of profit at 8% on cash deposits, and disallowed the application of Section 115BBE. The penalty under Section 271AAC was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance of interest was squarely covered by a previous decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case, leading to the deletion of the disallowance. Regarding the disallowance of salary and rent expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to remit the issue back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal noted that a recent decision by the jurisdictional High Court in a similar case has settled the issue against the assessee, confirming that EDC payments attract TDS deduction. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that there was no indication that Smt. Keshar Devi had succeeded to the estate of the deceased or was otherwise a legal representative as defined by law. Therefore, the appeal could not be proceeded with.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, making the entire proceedings vitiated. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal observed that the addition was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) based on the Assessing Officer's order. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard on merit.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without proper application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings invalid. Therefore, the entire proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. For the addition, the Tribunal upheld the AO's invocation of Section 145(3) but directed an estimation of profit at 8% on cash deposits, and disallowed the application of Section 115BBE. The penalty under Section 271AAC was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were initiated beyond the permissible ten-year block period. The date of handing over seized material was the relevant date for computation.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating assessment proceedings under Section 153C was not valid in the eyes of law. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued on March 31, 2021, was barred by limitation as per Section 149 of the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the order of the CIT(A) were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated all the grounds of appeal, particularly the penalty related to the depreciation disallowance. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte, there might have been communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' rejection of the assessee's claim that purchases from M/s Parth International were genuine, considering them as accommodation entries. However, the Tribunal found the gross profit estimations by both the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC to be too high.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' rejection of the assessee's claim that purchases from M/s Parth International were genuine, considering them as accommodation entries. However, the Tribunal found the gross profit estimations by both the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC to be too high.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' rejection of the assessee's claim that purchases from M/s Parth International were genuine, considering them as accommodation entries. However, the Tribunal found the gross profit estimations by both the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC to be too high.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment after four years without a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, or without any fresh material, is invalid and amounts to a change of opinion. The reassessment proceedings were quashed.