Loading ITAT cases…
908 orders · Page 15 of 19
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous because the Assessing Officer, in the scrutiny assessment, did not address the grievances raised by the assessee against the 143(1) intimation. Therefore, the 143(1) order did not merge with the 143(3) assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were unsustainable in law because a common approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted for multiple cases, rendering the consequential assessments a nullity. Therefore, all impugned assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's absence from India and financial crisis. It found merit in the assessee's contention that notices were not served due to circumstances beyond his control.
The Tribunal held that the item of Rs. 29,525/- (P&M repairs) was below the limit prescribed in Section 194C(5) and therefore directed its deletion. The Tribunal also directed the Ld. AO to re-examine payments for repairs and maintenance and swimming pool maintenance to determine if individual payments were covered under Section 194C(5). Lastly, the lease rent items were to be examined again based on facts submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the addition was sustained ex-parte by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to be heard on merit.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to a vague show cause notice which failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on the case of PCIT vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were unsustainable in law because a common approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted for multiple cases, rendering the consequential assessments a nullity. Therefore, all impugned assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were unsustainable in law because a common approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted for multiple cases, rendering the consequential assessments a nullity. Therefore, all impugned assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard and that the rejection was not justified without examining the provided documents. Therefore, the issue of registration was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s decision to not condone the delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s decision to not condone the delay.
The Tribunal agreed with the findings of the lower authorities. It held that the assessee's consistent absence and lack of any defence material meant there was no basis to assail the order of the lower authorities, relying on the principle that law aids vigilant litigants.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by denying the virtual hearing request without reason and failing to consider the assessee's submissions. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that a valid notice under Section 148 of the Act must be issued and served on the assessee within the prescribed time for assumption of jurisdiction. Since the notice was not validly served, the subsequent reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
The Tribunal observed that the addition was sustained ex-parte by the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merit.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 333 days, holding that the reasons provided were sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee and that the principles of natural justice were violated. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the addition was sustained ex-parte by the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merit.
The Tribunal observed that the addition was sustained ex-parte by the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the assessment year in question was not covered within the six assessment years as per Section 153C of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 3312 days in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained and lacked sufficient cause. Citing various judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal emphasized that delay condonation requires a judicial and judicious exercise of discretion, with the onus on the appellant to provide adequate reasons.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's circumstances and admitted them for hearing. Considering the lack of contest before the lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly set aside the assessment order by observing that the year under consideration was not covered within the six assessment years as per Section 153C of the Act, following the ratio laid down by the High Court. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly relied on the High Court's judgment in the case of PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and held that the assessment year was not covered within the ambit of Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. No contrary judgment or differentiable facts were presented by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the addition made on the basis of seized material found at a third-party premises, even during the same search, could only be made after initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Act. Therefore, the addition made under Section 153A was not sustainable.
The Tribunal acknowledged that ignorance of law is generally not an excuse, but considering the interests of substantive justice, it decided to provide the assessee with another chance by remanding the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of seized cash and jewellery, bogus purchases, disallowed expenses, and transfer pricing adjustments were unsustainable. The Tribunal found that payments for purchases were made through banking channels and TDS was deducted, and that transfer pricing was incorrectly handled.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, being signed manually in an 'E-Proceedings' case, suffers from an incurable defect and is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the software license fees and services do not qualify as FTS.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) had relied on a High Court judgment to hold that the assessment year in question was not covered under Section 153C of the Act. The Tribunal found no contrary judgment or facts from the department.
The Tribunal noted that the orders of both lower authorities were passed ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider all evidence, including the correct share of the assessee and determine the capital gains tax liability.
The Tribunal found that while the rejection of books of account was justified due to non-submission of complete details, the estimated net profit rate of 8% was on the higher side. Considering the trend of previous years, the Tribunal reduced the estimated net profit rate to 2%.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 14.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 was time-barred. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal and the revenue's concession that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16, had to be dropped.
The Tribunal held that the payments were reimbursements of salaries paid to seconded employees, and not fees for technical services, as an employee-employer relationship was established between the seconded employees and the Indian entities. Therefore, the reimbursements were not taxable in India as FTS.
The Tribunal found a significant lacuna in the fact-finding by both the AO and CIT(A) regarding the trail and flow of money. The creditworthiness of loan givers and genuineness of transactions were not examined in depth. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal observed that the addition was sustained ex-parte by the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merit.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of agricultural income and rental income to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to re-decide the issue after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and to furnish verifiable documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee did not satisfy the 'make available' clause of the India-Canada DTAA. Therefore, the receipts were not taxable in India as FTS under the treaty.
The tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was illegal and without jurisdiction because the approval under Section 151 was not obtained from the 'specified authority' as required by law, especially since more than 3 years had elapsed since the end of the assessment year.
The Tribunal observed that the addition was sustained ex-parte by the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merit.
The Tribunal decided to decide the appeal on merits after considering the delay, stating that the travelling and visa expenses were genuine business expenditures incurred for the purpose of business, even though paid by sons residing abroad. The ground related to interest on TDS was dismissed as a covered issue.
The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided that a denovo assessment was required. The issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the services provided to Flipkart did not meet the 'make available' condition for FTS. For PhonePe, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in the assessee's submissions and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that payments of EDC to HUDA are covered under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, attracting TDS liability. The assessee's contention that HUDA was a government entity and thus exempt was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2014-15 was barred by limitation, rendering the assessment order void. For the other assessment years, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a second chance to present facts.
The Tribunal held that payments of EDC to HUDA are covered under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, attracting TDS liability. The assessee's contention that HUDA was a government entity and thus exempt was rejected.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merit. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C for AY 2014-15 were initiated without jurisdiction. The jurisdiction for such proceedings was limited to AY 2016-17 and prior, based on the search and seizure operation.
The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in the appeal was Rs. 2,35,670/-, which was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for Section 54F deduction as they owned more than one residential unit. However, the Tribunal found that the cash deposits were explained by cash withdrawals, security deposits, and part of the sale consideration, and thus allowed the addition related to cash deposits.