Loading ITAT cases…
908 orders · Page 18 of 19
The Tribunal found that the assessee was genuinely unaware of the faceless assessment proceedings and notices. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be unintentional and inadvertent. The Tribunal also set aside the order of the lower authorities and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to appear and provide all relevant details.
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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Recognizing the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the Tribunal set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Recognizing the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the Tribunal set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence to rebut the findings regarding the accommodation entry. The addition of unexplained credit and commission expenditure was confirmed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Recognizing the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the Tribunal set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the purchases. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's sales were accepted and the GP rate in preceding years was less than 1%.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Recognizing the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, the Tribunal set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities for hearing.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide complete evidence, disallowing the entire expenses was not justified. The commission payments were below TDS threshold, and rental agreements were partially submitted. Therefore, a partial disallowance was deemed appropriate.
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 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 for an unabated assessment year under section 153C, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. The PCIT's revision direction lacked specific incriminating material to justify the addition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely an authorized signatory and not the owner of the bank account. The evidence presented indicated the account belonged to the assessee's brother's firm. Therefore, the addition made in the assessee's hands was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that filing the audit report in Form 10CCB electronically was a directory requirement, not mandatory. Since the report was available before the AO and the claim for deduction was made in the return, the requirement of the Act was met.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the loan agreement for Rs. 10 crore at 3.5% per month interest was not controverted and adequately explained the interest amounts, making a cash loan of Rs. 25 crore improbable.
The Tribunal held that the appellant's locus standi was not established. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification of the appellant's status as the legal representative.
The Tribunal held that the combined approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for multiple assessees under Section 153D of the Act vitiates the entire assessment. Consequently, the impugned assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had made efforts to deposit the ESI/PF contribution on time, but the transaction was reversed due to technical issues with the bank. The finality of the transaction was achieved later due to these glitches beyond the assessee's control. Consequently, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that since Form 10B was available to the Assessing Officer when processing the return, the benefit of Section 11 should be allowed. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow relief for the inadvertent mistake in reporting receipts under Section 11(3).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's ill health and subsequent death. On merits, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the cash deposit (Rs. 4.50 lakhs) and directed that it be taxed at the normal rate, not the enhanced rate under section 115BBE.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee decided not to pursue the appeal. The Ld. DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal considered that the CIT(E) proceeded ex-parte and there might have been communication gaps. Therefore, to restore the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Voter IDs provided for Deepak, concluding that the person who withdrew cash was different from the appellant's employee. It found that the appellant failed to link the cash deposits with specific withdrawals and upheld the addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit, dismissing Ground No. 2. However, a lump sum addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- was considered just and proper for the impugned cash deposits, considering the assessee's business turnover and the possibility of cash transactions in an unorganized sector.
The Tribunal allowed a lumpsum disallowance of 3% on the alleged bogus purchases, stating it would not be treated as a precedent. The penalty imposed for non-cooperation was deleted.
The Tribunal allowed a lumpsum disallowance of 3% on the alleged bogus purchases, stating it would not be treated as a precedent. The penalty imposed for non-cooperation was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and not taxable as income from other sources, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF. The Tribunal distinguished contrary High Court decisions by noting they overlooked subsequent Supreme Court affirmations.
The Tribunal held that the issue of EDC payments attracting TDS was settled in favour of the Revenue. However, regarding the medical expenses for directors, it was held that the payments did not exceed the prescribed ceiling under the RBI's Liberalized Remittance Scheme (LRS), and therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a dead person is invalid and void. The lower authorities failed to take corrective steps despite the fact that the assessee had died before the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that manufacturing profits on account of backward area benefits (excise duty and CST waiver) should be considered for determining OP/OC. It also held that excise duty exemption, when availed after the 10th year, can be treated as a capital receipt. The transfer pricing issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the combined approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for multiple assessees under Section 153D of the Act vitiates the entire assessment. Consequently, the impugned assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition for rental income as the AO's estimation was based solely on online portal data without corroborating evidence. Similarly, the disallowance of internet charges was also upheld as they were found to be incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the impugned order of the PCIT. The Tribunal adopted the reasoning from its previous decision in Pawan Kumar vs. PCIT. The Tribunal held that the decision in Mahender Pal Narang vs. CBDT, relied upon by the Revenue, was distinguishable on facts and that the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Hari Singh, which affirmed the view in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF, was not brought to the notice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mahender Pal Narang. The Tribunal noted that the dismissal of an SLP in limine does not constitute a binding precedent. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was prompted solely by an audit objection, which cannot, by itself, render an AO's order erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's order, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam HUF, represented a debatable issue where two views were possible, and the AO had accepted one of them, thus precluding the assumption of revisional jurisdiction by the PCIT. The operative direction was to allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had erred by not recording any satisfaction before proceeding with the assessments under Section 153C. This lack of satisfaction was a condition precedent for such assessments.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was invalid because the assessee provided sufficient material to show that the assumption of escaped income exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs was incorrect. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings were void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had erred by not recording any satisfaction before proceeding with the assessments under Section 153C. This lack of satisfaction was a condition precedent for such assessments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the lower appellate order was passed ex-parte. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication to ensure substantial justice.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer was not explicitly clear as to whether the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal held that the recording of Section 153C satisfaction is not a mechanical exercise and an improper satisfaction vitiates the assessment.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the activities of segregation and rework, as explained by the assessee, were routine and did not involve specialized technical skill. The AO had fundamentally misunderstood the processes carried out by third parties. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while the AO was justified in disallowing the entire purchase, given that corresponding sales were not doubted and the vendor admitted to providing bogus entries, a partial disallowance would be more appropriate. The Tribunal directed a lump sum disallowance of 3% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority had proceeded ex-parte and that there might have been communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's adjustment for guarantee commission was based on a wrong presumption and was flawed. It also ruled that the entire commission paid for the sale of property was allowable as transfer expenses. For Section 14A, the disallowance should be computed only on dividend-bearing investments.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the sanction was not obtained from the competent authority. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Manish Gyanchand Mehta Versus DCIT. Consequently, the subsequent action initiated based on the invalid notice was void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the appeal as inadmissible because it was filed against an assessment order not pertaining to the appellant's PAN.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding it to be unintentional and substantial rights of the assessee were involved. The matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after providing a fair opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to contest the case before the CIT(A). The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had erred by not recording any satisfaction before proceeding with the assessments under Section 153C. This lack of satisfaction was a condition precedent for such assessments.