Loading ITAT cases…
908 orders · Page 12 of 19
The Tribunal observed that communication gaps might have prevented the assessee from effectively presenting their case, and there was a lack of proper adjudication as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a common approval was granted for nine assessees, which vitiated the entire assessment. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that such a combined Section 153D approval was invalid.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person is unsustainable and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act must be granted after due application of mind for each assessment year separately and cannot be a mere formality or rubber stamping. The approval in this case was found to be given in a hurried and bunched-up manner.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that a common approval was granted for nine assessees, which vitiated the entire assessment. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that such a combined Section 153D approval was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act must be granted after due application of mind for each assessment year separately and cannot be a mere formality or rubber stamping. The approval in this case was found to be given in a hurried and bunched-up manner.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition related to the difference in sales, as the assessee had reconciled the figures and there was no violation of Rule 46A. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 5 lacs was also deleted as the CIT(A) correctly found that the AO had wrongly treated opening balances as closing balances, and the amounts represented credit purchases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the submissions and the affidavit, finding that the assessee had a genuine explanation for the delay. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's history of being casual with tax matters and imposed a cost.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had focused on assessment proceedings rather than the criteria for grant of registration. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with all requirements and there were no allegations regarding the genuineness of the charitable activities. Consequently, the CIT(E) was directed to grant registration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). The ex-parte order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard, as the notices issued gave very short compliance periods. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not dispute that CUP was the MAM in earlier years and acknowledged the assessee's argument regarding insufficient time. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the TPO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had focused on assessment proceedings rather than the criteria for grant of registration. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with all requirements and there were no allegations regarding the genuineness of the charitable activities. Consequently, the CIT(E) was directed to grant registration.
The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment is not sustainable when the Assessing Officer does not make any addition based on the sole reason for reopening. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and vitiated the entire reopening process, citing the decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was not maintainable before the Delhi benches due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The STANDING ORDER defines territorial jurisdiction based on the Assessing Officer's location, and Fatehabad was not under the Delhi benches' jurisdiction as of 01.10.1997.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to bonafide reasons, including a change in employment and the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delays, citing Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's ex-parte order was not justified as it did not consider the merits of the case. Therefore, the ITAT restored the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a fair opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not meet the statutory criteria of being a registered or beneficial shareholder under Section 2(22)(e). Citing relevant precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the dividend addition was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is statutorily required to adjudicate appeals on merits. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was therefore unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on a wrong presumption of facts. Since the entire sale consideration was credited to the husband's bank account and offered to tax by him, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 154 days, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed them to adjudicate all grounds on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard, as the notices issued gave very short compliance periods. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard, as the notices issued gave very short compliance periods. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the investment in the new residential house and its completion within the stipulated period under Section 54F. It also found that the cash deposit was explained by the sale of a car, and the lower authorities erred in not considering the evidence.
The Tribunal held that considering the early stages of electronic communication and the assessee's lack of technological familiarity, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication.
The Tribunal agreed that the NCLT's approval of the Resolution Plan extinguishes all claims predating it, including statutory dues. Therefore, the appeal became infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard, as the notices issued gave very short compliance periods. Therefore, the ex-parte orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly quashed the reassessment proceedings as time-barred, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal lacked merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to make submissions as insufficient time was provided by the AO. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the assessee's submissions and documents.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid because the information on which it was based was already available to the AO during the original assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the reassessment was initiated after the expiry of four years without fulfilling the conditions of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted adequate inquiry during remand proceedings to verify the assessee's explanation. The books of accounts were audited and the book results were not rejected. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for procuring and processing content for the in-flight entertainment system do not fall within the definition of royalty or FTS under the India-UK DTAA. The assessee merely provided copyrighted content and did not transfer any rights or know-how.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the surviving period and, as per the amended Section 149, could only be issued if the escapement of income exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was flawed.
The Tribunal decided that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition for after-market expenses and also erred in allowing the deduction under Section 80IC. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the surviving period and, as per the amended Section 149, could only be issued if the escapement of income exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was flawed.
The Tribunal decided that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition for after-market expenses and also erred in allowing the deduction under Section 80IC. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee another chance to prove their bona fides. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that ignorance of tax laws is not a valid excuse for non-compliance. However, in the interest of substantive justice, the impugned orders were set aside and the quantum assessment was remanded to the AO. The penalty appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that ignorance of tax laws is not a valid excuse for non-compliance. However, in the interest of substantive justice, the impugned orders were set aside and the quantum assessment was remanded to the AO. The penalty appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal found that the explanation given by the assessee regarding the contingent liabilities was not properly considered by the CIT(A) and required factual verification. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a kachha arahtia broker, similar to an agent for unnamed principals. Following CBDT Circular No. 452, only commission income is considered for turnover in such cases. Therefore, the assessee's brokerage income did not exceed the threshold requiring a tax audit.
The Tribunal held that taxing the entire gross receipts without allowing deductions for charitable application of funds is incorrect. Following the principle of consistency and previous years' assessments, the AO was directed to tax only the surplus amount.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the completion of the residential house within the stipulated period for Section 54F deduction. It also found that the Rs. 26 lakhs deposited was indeed from the sale of the car, supported by documentary evidence, and therefore, the addition was unjustified.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to file necessary evidence and participate in the hearing.
The Tribunal admitted additional legal grounds, allowed certain claims for additional depreciation and other deductions on merits or by following previous orders, and remanded one issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication. Some grounds were dismissed as not pressed or consequential.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and adjudicated all grounds raised in the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.