Loading ITAT cases…
1,215 orders · Page 19 of 25
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 143(2) were invalid as they were issued manually without the required DIN, written reasons, or prior approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was vitiated.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the advertisement, sales promotion, and marketing expenses, noting it as a recurring issue where the assessee had succeeded in prior assessment years. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal followed precedents stating that only dividend-yielding investments should be considered for computation.
The Tribunal held that the interest component of land acquisition compensation, under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, is part of enhanced compensation and exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following Supreme Court decisions. The PCIT's order was based solely on an audit objection and was not sustainable.
The assessee requested to withdraw the present appeal, citing it as a duplicate and providing the correct appeal number. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Assessing Officer rightly made an addition of Rs. 37,47,492 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money in the form of jewellery. However, considering the peculiar circumstances, a lump sum addition of Rs. 4,00,000 would meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 143(2) were invalid as they were issued manually without the required DIN, written reasons, or prior approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the notices were beyond jurisdiction due to the Revenue's concession before the Supreme Court. For AY 2014-15, the notice issued on 28.07.2022 was found to be beyond the limitation period, calculated based on the 'surviving period' after considering the extension by TOLA and the assessee's reply.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous as the issue was settled under VSVS. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear despite notices and did not provide any compliance or documentation to the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal found the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) to be just and proper.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested the admission of an additional ground of appeal challenging the legality of the order passed under section 153A, arguing that no incriminating material was found during the search. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated this additional ground. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellate order deserved to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the assessee's appeal, considering the legal ground raised through the additional ground. The CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate the matter in accordance with the law after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The same decision was applied mutatis mutandis to the appeal for AY 2018-19. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made under section 68 or section 44AD, as the primary issue was the non-adjudication of the legality of the section 153A proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special statutory mechanism with its own timelines, which operate notwithstanding the general limitations under Section 153. The time consumed in DRP proceedings is part of this special regime and does not render the assessment void.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of CSR expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act does not preclude a claim for deduction under Section 80G. The nature of CSR expenditure being an application of income does not prevent it from being eligible for deduction under Section 80G if other conditions are met.
The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 143(2) were invalid as they were issued manually without the required DIN, written reasons, or prior approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148 was vitiated.
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the additions made by the AO were below the mandatory monetary threshold of Rs. 50 lacs as prescribed under the proviso to Section 153A, and therefore, the conditions for assessment under section 153C were not met. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) on the jurisdictional issue.
The Tribunal held that the issue of default revenue expenditure was debatable and did not warrant the imposition of penalty. Both twin ingredients of wilful concealment or submission of inaccurate particulars were absent.
The Tribunal held that the issue of default revenue expenditure was debatable and did not warrant the imposition of penalty. Both twin ingredients of wilful concealment or submission of inaccurate particulars were absent.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151 of the Act. The extended limitation period due to the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, does not override the requirements of Section 151 regarding the approving authority.
The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment was issued beyond the prescribed period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year without obtaining the necessary approval from the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted a jurisdictional high court's decision which held that such 'EDC' payments attract TDS deduction. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings treating the assessee in default under section 201(1).
The Tribunal, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, decided to grant the assessee a further opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to virtual hearings and lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. It was deemed appropriate to set aside the appeal and remand it back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the submissions and found merit in the assessee's arguments. It was held that the ingredients for imposing penalty under section 270A for under-reporting of income, stemming from mis-reporting, were not present in this case. The mistake was inadvertent, unintentional, and corrected promptly with taxes paid.
The Tribunal noted that both the satisfaction recorded by the AO and the approval granted by the PCIT were undated. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal held that such undated approval lacks validity in the eyes of the law and is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that to provide the assessee an opportunity to represent their case and prevent miscarriage of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee explained the cash deposits as originating from cash sales, there were significant discrepancies in the data presented. The Tribunal concluded that a portion of the cash sales were overbooked to justify the cash deposits, and thus, treated the excess booking of Rs. 1,25,97,896/- as unexplained cash credits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) without sufficient cause and imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee. However, to meet the ends of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer (AO) by applying the Bright Line Test in respect of AMP expenses is not sustainable in law, following the assessee's own case and High Court judgments. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the ITBA portal, as presented by the assessee, did not contain mention of any notice issued under Section 143(2) or 142(1) of the Act. It was held that the question was not about the irregularity of service but about the non-issuance of the notice itself.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) had considered additional evidence and a remand report, finding that the cash sales were supported by invoices, VAT payments, and timely submission of details to excise authorities, thus ruling out tampering.
The Tribunal held that ESOP expenditure is allowable under Section 37(1) following previous decisions. It further held that CSR expenditure, even if disallowed under Section 37(1), is eligible for deduction under Section 80G as it fulfills the conditions for donation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind independently, relying solely on the Investigation Wing's report. The reasons recorded for reopening were found to be vague and lacking specific details regarding the nature of accommodation entries, making the entire proceeding vitiated.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not file complete details, leading to an ex parte order. The CIT(A) refused to admit additional evidence. In the interest of justice, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh order.
The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) based on medical reasons provided by the assessee. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in disallowing the exemption and the claims for Infrastructure Fund and payment to AwasBandhu. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and High Court judgments in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee could not fully reconcile the cash deposits, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 6 lakhs would be just and proper, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent. For assessment under section 115BBE, the Tribunal directed assessment under normal provisions as the said section applies only from 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's contentions were rejected primarily because the statement of affairs of Shri Chander Hash was not furnished. However, the documents already provided by the assessee to prove creditworthiness were not examined. The bank statement of Shri Chander Hash was also not apparently examined by the AO or CIT(A).
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, holding that there is no presumption of accuracy for loose sheets found in the premises of a third party. The CIT(A) noted that both the assessee and the lender denied any interest payment, and there was no other corroborative evidence. Thus, the addition made by the AO was considered notional and deleted.
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, holding that there is no presumption of accuracy for loose sheets found in the premises of a third party. The CIT(A) noted that both the assessee and the lender denied any interest payment, and there was no other corroborative evidence. Thus, the addition made by the AO was considered notional and deleted.
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, holding that there is no presumption of accuracy for loose sheets found in the premises of a third party. The CIT(A) noted that both the assessee and the lender denied any interest payment, and there was no other corroborative evidence. Thus, the addition made by the AO was considered notional and deleted.
The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, holding that there is no presumption of accuracy for loose sheets found in the premises of a third party. The CIT(A) noted that both the assessee and the lender denied any interest payment, and there was no other corroborative evidence. Thus, the addition made by the AO was considered notional and deleted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), after hearing both parties, deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration on merits. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The finding on each specific ground of appeal was not adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, as the decision was to remand the case. The ratio decidendi is that when substantial documentary evidence is presented by the assessee at the appellate stage and the AO has not had the opportunity to examine it, a remand for fresh consideration is warranted to ensure a fair adjudication. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the AO. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Tribunal chose to remand the entire matter.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed time limit, but condoned the delay due to a bonafide reason of incorrect email communication. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed time limit, but condoned the delay due to a bonafide reason of incorrect email communication. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to provide complete evidence but recognized that incurring expenses was undeniable. To balance justice, the disallowance was reduced from the 50% by the AO and 25% by the CIT(A) to a final disallowance of 10% of the total expenses claimed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before them, considering the reasonable cause shown by the assessee. Similarly, the delay before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. Considering that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without merits, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) erroneously considered grounds from an earlier appeal against an intimation order. The Tribunal found that the figure of income in the computation sheet was a mistake apparent from the record.
The Tribunal found that the AO's inquiry and verification were limited, and the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for proper verification.
The Tribunal, having heard the Learned DR and considering the ex parte nature of the appeal due to the assessee's absence, decided to remit the matter back to the First Appellate Authority. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, preventing a miscarriage of justice.
The Tribunal held that the Section 153C notice was issued beyond the six preceding assessment years, and the satisfaction note did not establish that the escaped income met the Rs. 50 lakh threshold requirement. Consequently, the notices and assessment orders were quashed.