Loading ITAT cases…
908 orders · Page 17 of 19
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders for both assessment years were passed beyond the time limit stipulated in Section 144C(13) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that while the AO could add issues for which satisfaction was recorded, they also had a duty to examine other issues that came to their notice during proceedings. The AO's failure to verify the second import was considered erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 on issues already under appeal before the CIT(A) was bad in law. The Tribunal also noted that the PCIT was silent on the aspect of bogus sales.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the additional evidence was properly admitted and that the assessee had provided sufficient substantiation for the amounts in question. The Tribunal agreed that the addition on account of exceptional charges amounted to double addition.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) before supplying the reasons for reassessment under Section 147 violated principles of natural justice and rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing cogent documents and repaying the loan.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was vitiated due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. This procedural defect renders the reassessment order invalid.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) before supplying the reasons for reassessment under Section 147 violated principles of natural justice and rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing cogent documents and repaying the loan.
The Tribunal noted that the agreements for these expenses were executed in later financial years and not for the years cited for consistency. However, considering the larger interest of justice and a procedural issue regarding opportunity of hearing, the case was remanded.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of documents found at a third party's premises without corroboration. Furthermore, a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years under Section 153D was found to be contrary to the law, vitiating the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully demonstrated that there was no operation or turnover in the preceding financial year. Therefore, Section 194Q of the Act was not applicable, and the disallowance was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the competent authority erred in examining the genuineness of funds at the stage of considering the application for registration, which is relevant for cancellation. The Tribunal also noted that CSR contributions, while not allowable under Section 37, do not preclude 80G exemption. Technical mistakes in the application should not lead to dismissal without malice.
The Tribunal held that since the disallowances forming the basis of the penalty were deleted, the penalty had lost its substratum. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had allowed the appeal concerning the long-term capital loss, and the ITAT had allowed the business loss. Therefore, the penalty was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the competent authority erred in examining the genuineness of funds at the stage of considering the application for registration, which is relevant for cancellation. The Tribunal also noted that CSR contributions, while not allowable under Section 37, do not preclude 80G exemption. Technical mistakes in the application should not lead to dismissal without malice.
The Tribunal held that the assessment completed without issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is a violation of mandatory legal requirements, even if the return was filed belatedly. The assessment order was therefore considered invalid.
The Tribunal observed that the impugned order did not properly record the mode of service of notices and proceeded to dismiss the appeal without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and restored it to the NFAC for fresh notice and disposal.
The Tribunal noted that the Axis Bank had issued a revised certificate clarifying that the bank account belonged to the assessee's individual capacity, not the HUF. Due to this significant change in evidence, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the AO for de novo adjudication, directing the AO to determine if the transactions were already considered in the individual's assessment.
The Tribunal held that the investor company had provided sufficient evidence regarding the source of funds, and the AO failed to establish that the source of source was tainted. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent claim and the CIT(A)'s finding that the items constituted part of the plant and machinery for providing work spaces.
The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were beyond the 10-year block period, as reckoned from the satisfaction date under Section 153C. Therefore, the assessment orders were considered invalid.
The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were beyond the 10-year block period, as reckoned from the satisfaction date under Section 153C. Therefore, the assessment orders were considered invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), finding that the assessment order for the year in question was indeed beyond the 10-year period as per explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) of the Act. The Tribunal followed the binding precedent of the Jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly concluded that Section 68 of the Act could not have been invoked. The assessee had provided explanations for the entry, and the capitalization of interest to CWIP was not disputed on merits, with no unexplained credit entry found.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce any cogent document to prove that the amount was not received from M/s Cyprus Multitrade Ltd. Despite the assessee's contention of non-receipt, the matter was restored to the AO for de-novo adjudication with liberty to the assessee to produce supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order for Assessment Year 2010-11 was beyond the 10-year period as per Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) of the Act. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the TDS was deducted by the employer and not deposited. If deducted, the credit should be allowed to the assessee, and the AO should recover the amount from the employer.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153C assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer's own order confirmed no relevant seized material was found for the assessee. The Tribunal also relied on a High Court decision stating that a satisfaction note under Section 153C is unsustainable without indicating the income to be assessed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, and the legal grounds raised by the assessee were not considered by the NFAC. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits and law.
The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest on the interest-free security deposit as deemed rent was not justified. It relied on the case of CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba, which established that such notional interest cannot form part of the actual rent under Section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the addition of notional interest on the interest-free security deposit as deemed rent was not justified. It relied on the case of CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba, which established that such notional interest cannot form part of the actual rent under Section 23(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in relying on facts from a previous assessment year without establishing similarity. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the amount written off on account of OTS of term loans qualifies as a business deduction in the relevant financial year. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld, with directions for the AO to conduct specific verifications.
The Tribunal held that the objects of the trust were purely charitable and the temple expenses were mischaracterized Ashram maintenance. It further noted that even if Puja expenses were considered religious, they were well below the 5% limit specified in Section 80G(5B) of the Act. Consequently, the Assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 80G.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made for a property unrelated to the Section 153C proceedings initiated based on the search action. Therefore, the lower authorities erred in making the impugned addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice due to potential communication gaps.
The Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of cash found during the search, finding the assessee's explanation for the source to be satisfactory. However, for jewellery found, the Tribunal allowed credit for 800 grams as per CBDT instructions but upheld the addition for the remaining amount.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for a valid assessment. Failure to issue or serve such a notice vitiates the entire assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had made out a reasonable cause for the delay in furnishing the return, citing communication gaps between management and the auditor, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum assessment of the cash deposits at 10%, similar to other assessed entries, and directed that the assessment under Section 115BBE should follow normal provisions as the section is effective from April 1, 2017. The cash deposit was made before this date.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged his onus by showing sufficient cash withdrawals exceeding the deposited amount. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings, which were also mentioned in other years' appeals, indicated that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence. The AO's contention of non-submission of credible documents was found incorrect as the CIT(A) confirmed the documents were uploaded during assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to participate and file necessary evidence. Ground of appeal No. 3 was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings, which were also mentioned in other years' appeals, indicated that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence. The AO's contention of non-submission of credible documents was found incorrect as the CIT(A) confirmed the documents were uploaded during assessment.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to participate and file necessary evidence. Ground of appeal No. 3 was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings, which were also mentioned in other years' appeals, indicated that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence. The AO's contention of non-submission of credible documents was found incorrect as the CIT(A) confirmed the documents were uploaded during assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases. However, considering divergent judicial views on similar issues, the disallowance of bogus purchases was restricted to a lumpsum Gross Profit (GP) of 5%.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings, which were also mentioned in other years' appeals, indicated that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence. The AO's contention of non-submission of credible documents was found incorrect as the CIT(A) confirmed the documents were uploaded during assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessment order was without jurisdiction. This was because the Section 143(2) notice was not issued by the jurisdictional AO and was also not validly signed or issued within the statutory time limit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, as per its objects and supported by judicial pronouncements, qualify as objects of general public utility under Section 2(15). Therefore, the rejection of registration by the CIT(E) was not justified.