Loading ITAT cases…
908 orders · Page 3 of 19
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) due to factual discrepancies regarding the ownership of the bank account where the cash was deposited. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) due to factual discrepancies regarding the ownership of the bank account where the cash was deposited. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that mere uploading of notices on the e-filing portal, without effective service or direct communication (like email/SMS alerts) to the assessee, does not constitute sufficient service and can lead to a violation of natural justice. Citing a binding precedent from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Tribunal found that the assessee's lack of actual knowledge regarding the notices amounted to a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) was set aside and deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matters were directed to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A) on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was invalid due to multiple procedural lapses. These included discrepancies in the reasons provided, violation of natural justice by passing an order before the compliance date, and obtaining approval from an inappropriate authority.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding transfer pricing adjustments for export of ferrous, finding no infirmity in the methodology adopted. The CIT(A) had rightly directed the TPO to consider amended contracts and restricted the adjustment based on comparable uncontrolled prices.
The Tribunal upheld the procedural validity of the reassessment proceedings and the assessment framed under Sections 144/147, noting the assessee's non-compliance. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to accept the source of cash deposits only to the extent supported by documented sale consideration (Rs.60,57,000/-). The Tribunal found that self-serving affidavits without corroborative evidence were insufficient to discharge the assessee's onus to explain the remaining unexplained cash deposits of Rs.1,37,59,581/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matters were directed to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A) on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was bad in law due to a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple years without specific details. The assessment order passed under Section 153C was therefore vitiated and quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeev Bansal and other High Court and ITAT judgments. The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 was indeed issued beyond the 'surviving time limit' as per the established legal precedents.
The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition under Section 68, holding that the assessee had established the creditworthiness of the lenders. It also confirmed the deletion of the disallowance of expenses related to share capital increase, treating them as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claim for expenses incurred for business expediency.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeev Bansal and other High Court and ITAT judgments. The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 was indeed issued beyond the 'surviving time limit' as per the established legal precedents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It confirmed that the ten-year period for Section 153C assessments, as per Section 153A(1) Explanation-I, is counted 'from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted,' and AY 2012-13 fell outside this period. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2015-16 under Section 153C was barred by limitation and beyond the AO's jurisdiction. This was based on the principle that the satisfaction note must demonstrate a nexus with the specific assessment year, and the relevant period for Section 153C proceedings was not met.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's business activity is not in dispute, the onus of reconciling cash sales with turnover was not discharged. However, considering the unorganized nature of the sector, a lump sum estimation of 8% was deemed appropriate, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent and Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 41(1) was not sustainable in law. This was because the Assessing Officer's observation in the assessment order did not clearly establish that the amount in issue had ceased to exist as a liability as per the assessee's books of account, a mandatory condition cited from CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's operations, primarily software development and consultancy, do not qualify as charitable under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. The financing from 'Azcom Infosolutions' was also deemed commercial and not charitable income. Consequently, the denial of registration by the CIT(E) was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities wrongly assessed the individual assessee for rental income when the income pertained to the assessee's HUF, which had already been assessed for the same income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not admissible as it did not meet the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the department as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024.
The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate order was passed ex-parte and that there might have been communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored.
The Tribunal noted that the amount was received by transfer from the assessee's husband, who was covered under the exempt category of 'relatives' as per Section 56(2)(vii)(e) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the addition.
Given the assessee's consistent non-appearance before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, and the absence of any material to contradict the findings of the lower authorities, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld on merits.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10 (or 10A/10B) is directory in nature, not mandatory. Since the assessee had filed the audit report well before the assessment, the refusal of exemption was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged its onus to prove the source of cash deposits, a lump sum GP estimation of 5% for regular business sales would be just and proper, without setting a precedent. Regarding Section 115BBE, it was noted that it applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal acknowledged that cash sales in such businesses cannot be ruled out but noted the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory reconciliation. Consequently, a lump sum GP estimation of 10% on the impugned cash deposits was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenditure made through credit card on behalf of the company was unsustainable in the hands of the individual assessee. The expenditure appeared to be business expenditure and should have been addressed in the hands of the company, not the salaried employee.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(E), directing them to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity of being heard and considering the evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was set aside for de-novo assessment, the basis for levying the penalty had been eroded. Consequently, the penalty proceedings could not survive.
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 by passing a speaking order. The impugned order was found unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the need for justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to make submissions and furnish documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that while the cash deposits were likely earlier withdrawals, they were not fully proven to the satisfaction of lower authorities. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was considered just and proper.
The Tribunal found no contrary judgment or differentiating facts from the department. It agreed with the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessment year was outside the ambit of Section 153C and Section 153A of the Act, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Puri Construction Private Limited, which held that EDC payments to HUDA are subject to TDS under Section 194C. Therefore, the ground raised by the revenue was sustained.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly observed that the assessment year was not covered within the six assessment years as per Section 153C of the Act, following the High Court's precedent. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merits in the grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is an incurable defect that makes the assessment invalid. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal was cited, emphasizing that Section 292BB of the Act does not cure the complete absence of a notice, only infirmities in its service.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds on merit. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the Assessee and did not decide all grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the addition under Section 68 related to a prior financial year, not the assessment year under appeal, and was therefore deleted. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal relied on existing case law stating that disallowance is not attracted if no exempt income was derived.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by previous orders of the ITAT and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal observed that the delay included the corona period and that while the reasons for non-receipt of notices might not be acceptable, the assessee deserved adjudication on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening under Section 151 was mechanical and not based on an independent application of mind, making it unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits. Such dismissal is contrary to the scheme of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue did not challenge the deletion of the primary addition of Rs. 1,57,65,399/-, which was the sole basis for reopening the assessment. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as it had no grievance against the deletion of the sole basis for reopening.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment jurisdiction was assumed based on a notice that was never served upon the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Veena Devi Karnani vs. ITO.
The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in reopening the assessment and making the addition, as the assessee failed to substantiate its claims with evidence before the lower authorities. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that once a search is initiated, the assessment proceedings must follow the special provisions under Section 148 and cannot continue under the general provision of Section 143(3), especially when the time for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) had expired. The assessment framed under Section 143(3) was quashed.
The Tribunal held that once a search is initiated, the assessment proceedings must follow the special provisions under Section 148 and cannot continue under the general provision of Section 143(3), especially when the time for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) had expired. The assessment framed under Section 143(3) was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under section 143(3) merges with and supersedes the earlier intimation under section 143(1). The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the income declared in the return and delete the disallowances made by CPC.
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and decided that restoring the appeals to the PCIT(A) for fresh adjudication would be in the larger interest of justice.