Loading ITAT cases…
1,215 orders · Page 2 of 25
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the justification provided. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues on merits were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive for determining the limitation period for final assessment orders. Consequently, assessment orders passed beyond the stipulated time limits are without jurisdiction and thus quashed.
The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive and interdependent. The period of limitation prescribed under section 153 of the Act is applicable for passing the final assessment order. In all the assessment years under review, the final assessment orders were passed beyond the stipulated deadlines as per section 153.
The Tribunal held that the TPO's computation of ALP for interest on ECBs was flawed, particularly by deviating from the consistent treatment in prior assessment years. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made on account of interest on ECBs.
The Tribunal considered that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on audit objections and a change of opinion, without tangible material or failure of the assessee to disclose material facts. The notice for reassessment was also issued beyond the prescribed time limit.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, these orders were considered to be without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special mechanism for completing assessments after a draft order, operating notwithstanding the general limitation period in Section 153. The time taken in the DRP process is statutorily defined and intended for the assessee's benefit.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments after the draft order stage. Section 153 governs the time up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the period from the draft order to the final assessment.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments after a draft order. It reasoned that Section 153 governs the stage up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the post-draft process, making the mandatory timelines within Section 144C effective.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation, following the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and other co-ordinate benches. The Tribunal quashed the impugned final assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient substance and control in Singapore to qualify for treaty benefits. The arrangement was deemed an impermissible attempt to gain tax advantages, and thus, capital gains were held to be taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and vitiated the entire search assessment proceedings. Following previous decisions on similar grounds, the Tribunal quashed the assessments.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. Observing that the final assessment orders in question were indeed passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the Tribunal concluded that these orders were without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the circumstances. It was held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to contest the matter on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment orders.
The Tribunal noted that all transactions were accounted for in the assessee's books, and payments were made from disclosed sources. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Act could not be applied in such circumstances where transactions are disclosed and payments are traceable.
The Tribunal held that the impugned Final Assessment Order was barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. Following the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court and other co-ordinate benches, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the justification provided. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues on merits were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C prescribes a distinct statutory cycle for assessments involving the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), with its own timelines that operate independently of Section 153. The assessment order was not barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C prescribes a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments after the draft order stage. Section 153 governs the period up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the subsequent stages, ensuring expeditious disposal and ease of business.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for the delay was due to mental ailment, supported by medical documents, and did not appear to be mala fide. Therefore, the delay was condoned and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the prescribed time limits under Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and vitiated the entire search assessment proceedings. Following previous decisions on similar grounds, the Tribunal quashed the assessments.
The Tribunal held that the CPC could not have made the disallowance under Section 143(1) when the issue was highly debatable and there were favorable High Court decisions. Consequently, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive and interdependent for determining the limitation period for final assessment orders. Based on the provided date charts, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders in all the appeals were passed beyond the statutory time limits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation, following the ratio of the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and other co-ordinate bench decisions. The assessment orders were quashed on this limited legal issue.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C prescribes a complete statutory cycle with its own timelines, which operate notwithstanding the general limitation period in Section 153. The time consumed in DRP proceedings is not to be subsumed within Section 153.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments after the draft order stage. Section 153 governs the period up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the subsequent stages, including DRP proceedings and the final order.
The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and that the final assessment order passed for AY 2012-13 was indeed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments after the draft order stage. It reasoned that Section 153 governs up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the subsequent process, making the latter's timelines non-redundant.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition, as the AO had failed to consider the established modus operandi of Business Correspondents and Customer Service Providers under their agreement with SBI. The transaction was a bank transfer to a designated settlement account, not an unexplained cash credit.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent for determining the limitation period for passing final assessment orders. It found that the final assessment orders in the present cases were indeed passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under these sections.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed jewellery in her income tax returns prior to the search. While the opening balance of jewellery as of 01.04.2006 could not be fully substantiated with proper bills/vouchers, the assessee is a high net worth individual. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the undisclosed jewellery to 20% of the value of jewellery valued as on 31.03.2022, which amounts to Rs. 1,46,05,349/-.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Following the ratio in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders as being without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not dispute the identity of the lender. Regarding creditworthiness, the CIT(A) had considered the reserves and surpluses of the lender company, concluding they were sufficient for the investment. The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's contention that the CIT(A) erred in issuing directions for inquiry under Section 133(6).
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind, as evidenced by the absence of supporting assessment materials. This vitiated the entire search assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders passed in the respective assessment years were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the dates furnished by the assessee, which were not disputed by the revenue, clearly indicated that the final assessment orders were passed after the due dates. Following the ratio laid down in the case of Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal concluded that the final assessment orders passed beyond the period of limitation were without jurisdiction and therefore quashed. The Tribunal also referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in PayPal Payments Pvt. Ltd., which, after considering the Supreme Court's interim order in Shelf Drilling, refused to entertain a writ petition on an identical issue. As the assessee succeeded on the legal issue of limitation, the Tribunal did not adjudicate other grounds of appeal, leaving them open. The appeals were allowed, with liberty to revive them if the Supreme Court allows the revenue's appeal in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. The operative direction was to quash the final assessment orders.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not dispute the identity of the lender. Regarding creditworthiness, the CIT(A) had considered the reserves and surpluses of the lender company, concluding they were sufficient for the investment. The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's contention that the CIT(A) erred in issuing directions for inquiry under Section 133(6).
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation, following the ratio of the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and other co-ordinate bench decisions. The assessment orders were quashed on this limited legal issue.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for AY 2020-21 is barred by limitation. Following the ratio laid down in CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal found that the date on which the final assessment order was passed by the AO was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the dates provided by the assessee, which were not disputed by the revenue, clearly indicated the AO's order was passed beyond the stipulated time. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed. The Tribunal decided not to adjudicate other grounds of appeal as the assessee succeeded on the primary legal issue of limitation. The Tribunal also observed that both parties are at liberty to revive the appeal if the Hon'ble Apex Court reverses the law expounded in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. The operative direction is to quash the assessment order.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C operates as a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments after the draft order stage. The general limitation period under Section 153 is applicable up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the subsequent stages.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's ground regarding unexplained investment, holding that the deposits were renewals of old FDs and not fresh investments, and therefore, Section 69 of the Act was not sustainable. The Tribunal found no substance in the revenue's grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal held that the differential consideration of Rs. 3,32,960 is within the 10 percent tolerance limit applicable to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which is pari materia with Section 56(2)(vii)(b). Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found the addition to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C and Section 153 are mutually inclusive and overlapping, and the time limits prescribed in both sections must be adhered to for passing final assessment orders. It found that the final assessment orders in question were indeed passed beyond the statutory period of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous without considering the adjustment made by the CPC in the return income. Such dismissal could lead to dual disallowance. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. Following the ratio of the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the final assessment order as being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. The impugned final assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C prescribes a complete statutory cycle for assessments involving the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and its timelines operate independently of Section 153. The special regime of Section 144C governs the time from the draft order to the final assessment, making the general limitation in Section 153 not applicable to the final order passed under Section 144C(13).