Loading ITAT cases…
840 orders · Page 7 of 17
The Tribunal held that the seized materials, specifically blank letterheads, were 'dumb documents' and could not form the basis for any addition. The AO's case was based on suspicion rather than concrete incriminating evidence.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to discharge the onus of proving an arrangement between the assessee and its associated enterprise to earn extraordinary profits. The Tribunal also found the ad hoc disallowance of expenses by the AO unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was vague, generic, and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the notice and assessment order were vitiated.
The Tribunal found that the Assessee had produced evidence for cash deposits and cost of improvement which were not considered by the authorities below. Therefore, both issues were remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68. The purchase and sale of shares were through banking channels, dematerialized, and supported by documentation, with no cogent material to prove otherwise.
The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed on the erroneous premise that the revised return was not e-verified. Furthermore, no statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. Therefore, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind. Consequently, the entire search assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was vague, generic, and lacked application of mind, failing to establish a nexus between the seized material and the assessee's assessment year. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C and the consequent assessment order were vitiated in law.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the minimum threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The Departmental Representative did not dispute the applicability of this circular.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were initiated beyond the prescribed limitation period of 10 years from the relevant assessment year. Furthermore, it was found that no incriminating material was seized that had a bearing on the assessee's income for the assessment years in question.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The assessee moved an application to withdraw the present appeal, stating that a subsequent order by the CIT(A) allowed the appeal against the Section 143(1) intimation, making the current appeal infructuous. The tribunal noted the application and the no objection from the Ld. DR.
The Tribunal estimated a lumpsum profit of 8% on the impugned cash deposits, stating it should not be treated as a precedent. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be made under normal provisions as the relevant transactions were before April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done considering potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism and in the larger interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have examined the objects and proposed activities of the trust, not just the cash transactions. The Tribunal granted the Section 12AA registration, subject to the AO examining the issues in appropriate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were initiated beyond the prescribed time limit and also lacked incriminating material seized from the assessee. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was not tenable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value and part of enhanced compensation, not taxable as income from other sources. The decision in Mahender Pal Narang was distinguished as not considering subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the sanction for issuing the notice u/s 148 was obtained from the Additional CIT instead of the Principal CIT, as required for reassessment after four years. Consequently, the notice u/s 148 was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the compliance of filing Form 10B tax audit report is directory, not mandatory, citing case law. The appeal was allowed based on this finding.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee claims they were not properly served, and this is not rebutted, additional evidence should not be rejected. The First Appellate Authority has the power to inquire into the issue afresh.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to obtain necessary approval from the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act for reopening the assessment, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant previous year. This failure vitiated the reopening proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reference to the DVO was unwarranted as there was no difference between the sale price and stamp duty value. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute capital gains based on the actual sale price/stamp price.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were initiated beyond the prescribed time limit and also lacked incriminating material seized from the assessee. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was not tenable.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the section 80GGC deduction. It noted that the investigation revealed no political activities by the RSP and that it was used to provide accommodation entries, making the donation bogus.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening by a separate speaking order vitiates the assessment. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that this procedural lapse is fatal to the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have examined the objects and proposed activities of the trust, not just the cash transactions. The Tribunal granted the Section 12AA registration, subject to the AO examining the issues in appropriate proceedings.
The Tribunal found that while the purchases were from accommodation entry providers, the assessee had already claimed depreciation and his turnover was not doubted. Therefore, a lumpsum disallowance of 3% of the bogus purchases was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits of Rs.4.65 lakhs had already been explained by the assessee in the first round of assessment. The lower authorities wrongly added these deposits as unexplained.
The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were initiated beyond the prescribed time limit and also lacked incriminating material seized from the assessee. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was not tenable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the notice under section 148 was issued after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The exception for escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more was not applicable.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the combined approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even if it involves a single assessee. Relying on various precedents, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's ground regarding the invalidity of the approval.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence of business sales as the source of deposits. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed just and proper, and Section 115BBE was not applicable to the transactions.
The Tribunal, following its own previous order in the assessee's own case for a similar assessment year, held that the revenue authorities had wrongly invoked the TDS provisions. The peculiar facts of the case did not warrant the disallowance of TDS on crane hiring charges.
The Tribunal found that the approval for reopening by the prescribed authority was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This rendered the reopening invalid.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer (AO) did not apply independent mind and relied solely on information from the investigation wing. The approval for reopening was also found to be mechanical, failing to meet the statutory requirements.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear, and the case was proceeded ex-parte. While acknowledging the additions made by the lower authorities regarding cash deposits, the Tribunal considered the assessee's business income from transportation and decided to make a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs, with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove its purchases as genuine by providing cogent supportive evidence. Considering judicial precedents, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the impugned bogus purchases, without treating it as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary approval from the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act for reopening the assessment, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant previous year. This failure vitiates the reopening proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were vitiated because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain necessary approval from the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant previous year. This failure was found to be fatal to the reopening itself.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on the marriage was claimed by the daughter in a complaint, and Section 56(2) of the Act exempts such expenditure. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities lacked merit and was deleted.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps leading to the ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal observed that while the assessee's business activity was legitimate, sourcing raw materials and making sales in cash in an unorganized sector is possible. A lumpsum addition of Rs.3.91 lakhs was deemed just and proper, not to be treated as a precedent, providing relief of Rs.36 lakhs. For the assessment under section 115BBE, it was held that the provision comes into effect for transactions on or after 01.04.2017, directing assessment under normal provisions.