Loading ITAT cases…
840 orders · Page 14 of 17
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, citing precedents from the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A/153C were quashed.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A)'s order was also considered non-speaking and lacking in merit.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(3) by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to utilize the accumulated funds within the period prescribed under the unamended law.
The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer merely adopted the income as assessed in the Section 143(1) intimation in the Section 143(3) assessment order without independent discussion or adjudication, the intimation does not merge with the assessment order. Therefore, a separate appeal against the intimation remains maintainable.
The Tribunal held that notices under Section 148 and subsequent assessment orders must be addressed to the correct person, not a deceased individual. Issuing them to a deceased assessee makes the proceedings a nullity, following the High Court's decision in Savita Kapila vs. ACIT.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically without proper application of mind, citing precedents from the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A r.w.s. 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal found merit in the Assessee's submission that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time based on the service date of the assessment order. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the technical grounds and incorrectly restored the assessment for de-novo assessment. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of all grounds.
The Tribunal allowed grounds related to stock valuation loss and royalty expenses, relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The ground related to Dividend Distribution Tax was dismissed, following a Special Bench decision. One ground was restored to the DRP for a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had provided several opportunities, but the assessee failed to submit written submissions or details. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with one more opportunity granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 54 requiring property purchase in India was prospective and not clarificatory, allowing exemption for the property purchased outside India before the amendment. It also held that Section 68 additions were not sustainable as bank passbooks are not considered 'books of accounts' for such additions.
The Tribunal held that the income was correctly offered in AY 2022-23 as per the sale deed and Section 45(1). Despite the buyer filing TDS in the subsequent year, credit for TDS should be given in the year the income is assessable, especially since Form 71 was filed. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the TDS credit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 130 days, finding reasonable cause. It observed that the CIT(E) did not examine the details furnished by the assessee and restored the appeals to the CIT(E) to decide the applications afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merit and had sustained the addition ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 130 days, finding reasonable cause. It observed that the CIT(E) did not examine the details furnished by the assessee and restored the appeals to the CIT(E) to decide the applications afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh decision. The assessee is to be given a fair opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were initiated without proper satisfaction and relied on electronic evidence (an image from an iPhone) without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the addition was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, citing precedents from the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A/153C were quashed.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not fully satisfied the Assessing Officer, the entire addition was too harsh. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 25 lakhs was deemed just and proper, with the remaining amount deleted. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be made under normal provisions.
The Tribunal held that if sales figures are reflected in returns and accepted under VAT/GST assessment, and the assessee shows them as sales in its books, there is no justification to treat them as undisclosed income under Section 68 without any adverse material or independent enquiry. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's name was not found in the list of persons to whom Radha Buildtech issued bogus bills.
The Tribunal held that initiating penalty proceedings on income already offered by the assessee and included in the return is not permissible, especially when no penalty was initiated during the original assessment. The Tribunal also noted that the AO exceeded jurisdiction in the set-aside proceedings by re-examining issues not before the ITAT. The initiation of penalty on an addition without proper justification was also questioned.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's appeal, noting divergent views on the disallowance of bogus purchases. It reversed the CIT(A)'s enhancement and restored the Assessing Officer's estimation of 5% disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be penalized for the employer's failure to deposit TDS. Following High Court precedents, the assessee is entitled to TDS credit based on salary slips showing deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored for fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law because the approval granted by the PCIT was not signed by the competent authority. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal agreed that the purchases were bogus but upheld the principle of taxing only the profit element, modifying the addition from 20% to 15% of the disputed purchases. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had not pointed out any discrepancies in the audited books of accounts and had not recorded cogent reasons for making ad-hoc disallowances. It further held that for disallowing expenses, specific enquiry and cogent evidence are required. However, the issue regarding disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) concerning employee contributions to provident fund was restored to the AO for further examination.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151 was mechanical and did not reflect an independent application of mind. Consequently, the impugned reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the property was held as an investment for more than 3 years and thus the gains arising from its sale were long-term capital gains, not business income. The Tribunal also directed the AO to consider the deduction u/s 54 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in completing the assessment under Section 143(3) after rejecting books under Section 145(3), as it should have been a best judgment assessment under Section 144. The estimated profit was also found to be arbitrary and excessive.
The Tribunal held that the common Section 153D approval granted for multiple assessees and assessment years is invalid, citing various precedents. Therefore, the assessment framed based on such an approval is quashed.
The Tribunal held that for Section 153C assessments concerning third parties, the relevant assessment year is to be computed from the date of handing over of seized records to the Assessing Officer, not the date of the search itself. Landmark judicial precedents were cited to support this.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed without giving the assessee proper opportunity to present their case and submissions, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the respondent's argument, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte. In the interest of justice and considering potential communication gaps in the new faceless hearing system, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was vitiated due to the Assessing Officer (AO) citing a non-existent provision (Section 147(a)) for seeking approval and the approval itself being mechanical, indicating a non-application of mind by both the AO and the sanctioning authorities.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was against natural justice due to invalid service of notices. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for Section 153C assessments concerning third parties, the relevant assessment year is to be computed from the date of handing over of seized records to the Assessing Officer, not the date of the search itself. Landmark judicial precedents were cited to support this.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that penalty cannot be imposed on income estimated by the Assessing Officer, especially when books of account are not rejected and interest-free funds were available. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. Regarding the first issue concerning the unsecured loan addition of Rs. 1,51,49,250/- under Section 68, the Tribunal noted that the impugned loans represented the opening balance as on 01.04.2021. Following various judicial precedents, including those cited by the assessee, the Tribunal held that Section 68 cannot be invoked for opening balances, as these represent transactions from prior years. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not warranted and was deleted. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's second substantive ground regarding the Section 41(1) addition of Rs. 3,83,71,515/- for unsubstantiated sundry creditors, noting that the AO treated it as a deemed cessation rather than an actual one, which is a condition precedent as per the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. The Tribunal further clarified that the addition was made because the liability was outstanding for preceding assessment years. The Revenue's third substantive ground concerning the Section 56(2)(vii)(a) addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- for a gift received was also rejected, as the assessee had provided proof of receipt from his niece, supported by a gift deed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no other ground or argument was pressed. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that for Section 153C assessments concerning third parties, the relevant assessment year is to be computed from the date of handing over of seized records to the Assessing Officer, not the date of the search itself. Landmark judicial precedents were cited to support this.
The Tribunal, considering the submissions and the interest of justice, found that a denovo assessment was necessary. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer with directions to decide the issues afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the evidence and that the AO's view was based on suo motu interpretation. Additional evidence was admitted, and the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Assessee requested to withdraw the current appeal because another appeal for the same assessment year was pending. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A as no additional evidence was filed by the assessee for the first time in appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) had passed a detailed order after appreciating the facts and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed without giving the assessee proper opportunity to present their case and submissions, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that for Section 153C assessments concerning third parties, the relevant assessment year is to be computed from the date of handing over of seized records to the Assessing Officer, not the date of the search itself. Landmark judicial precedents were cited to support this.
The Tribunal held that the common Section 153D approval granted for multiple assessees and assessment years is invalid, citing various precedents. Therefore, the assessment framed based on such an approval is quashed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed without giving the assessee proper opportunity to present their case and submissions, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.