Loading ITAT cases…
1,215 orders · Page 20 of 25
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C, the assessment order, and the additions/disallowances were illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, and barred by limitation. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decisions in Vartex Image Creation Pvt. Ltd. and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., which established that the satisfaction note and the consequent notice under Section 153C were not in compliance with the provisions of the Act, particularly concerning the time window and the threshold limit for escaped income.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not file any submissions or evidence before the CIT(E) despite multiple opportunities. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the circumstances, the tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed because the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued in the name of the legal heir of the deceased assessee, which is a mandatory requirement. The assessment order was issued in the name of the deceased assessee and was therefore bad in law.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. The Ld. CIT(A) had also failed to discuss the issues on merits appropriately, upholding the AO's action and dismissing the appeal, which was deemed unsustainable in law. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the disputed issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The directions were for the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the disputed issues after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to this course of action. The assessee was also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision for AY 2015-16 was to apply mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. The Ld. CIT(A) had also failed to discuss the issues on merits appropriately, upholding the AO's action and dismissing the appeal, which was deemed unsustainable in law. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the disputed issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The directions were for the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the disputed issues after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to this course of action. The assessee was also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision for AY 2015-16 was to apply mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. The Ld. CIT(A) had also failed to discuss the issues on merits appropriately, upholding the AO's action and dismissing the appeal, which was deemed unsustainable in law. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the disputed issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The directions were for the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the disputed issues after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to this course of action. The assessee was also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision for AY 2015-16 was to apply mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. The Ld. CIT(A) had also failed to discuss the issues on merits appropriately, upholding the AO's action and dismissing the appeal, which was deemed unsustainable in law. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the disputed issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The directions were for the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the disputed issues after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to this course of action. The assessee was also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision for AY 2015-16 was to apply mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. The Ld. CIT(A) had also failed to discuss the issues on merits appropriately, upholding the AO's action and dismissing the appeal, which was deemed unsustainable in law. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the disputed issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The directions were for the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the disputed issues after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to this course of action. The assessee was also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision for AY 2015-16 was to apply mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders. The Ld. CIT(A) had also failed to discuss the issues on merits appropriately, upholding the AO's action and dismissing the appeal, which was deemed unsustainable in law. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the disputed issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The directions were for the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on the disputed issues after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to this course of action. The assessee was also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision for AY 2015-16 was to apply mutatis mutandis to the other assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed without issuing notice u/s 143(2) is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. The AO's action in treating the belated return as non-est was not sustainable in law as the return was filed much before the completion of assessment. The Tribunal relied on various case laws to support its decision.
The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, it was held that Section 10A(9) of the Act could not be applied to deny the claimed deduction. This decision was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid statutory prior approval as required by Section 151 of the Act. The approval granted by the PCIT was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering it invalid.
The Tribunal observed that the deduction for interest on the home loan had been allowed in preceding assessment years on identical facts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the past claims and to follow the rule of consistency.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the NFAC. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had examined the issue and found that the assessee had proved that the loan was repaid through banking channels after deducting TDS. The Tribunal agreed with the NFAC's reasoning and findings, stating that they were based on a proper appreciation of the law as expounded by judicial dicta. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the NFAC's findings. The Tribunal observed that the NFAC had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT vs. Ambe Tradecorp (P) Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 27, which held that once repayment of the loan has been established based on documentary evidence, the credit entries cannot be looked into in isolation after ignoring the debit entries. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 is deleted. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The primary issue addressed was the validity of the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the AO had mentioned both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) in the notice dated 27.12.2018 and had not struck off the inapplicable portion. While the penalty order itself mentioned that the penalty was levied for 'concealment of income', the initial notice was flawed. The Tribunal found that this issue was covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order levied by the AO. Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the other grounds raised by the assessee, as the appeal was allowed on the basis of the flawed notice.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not served properly, and the assessee could not respond to it. The Tribunal also found that the gift from the grandmother falls within the definition of 'relative' and directed its deletion. The addition on account of jewellery sale was also directed to be deleted. However, the addition on account of sale of furniture was sustained due to lack of evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the date of recording satisfaction for a third party is considered the date of search for that party. The current assessment year, which fell within the block period of 6 years (2017-18 to 2022-23), should have been assessed under section 153C. Similar to the case of the assessee's brother, the Coordinate Bench dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that all notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 should be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the prescribed period. Therefore, the notice dated 27.04.2022 was barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal observed that the assessee, engaged in the real estate business, had duly recorded all sale transactions of immovable properties and the donation made to a political party in its books of account. Furthermore, these transactions were channeled through banking channels and declared in the return of income. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that since all transactions were recorded and substantiated, there was no basis for the AO to invoke Section 69A, which is applicable only to assets not recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal found no scope for the AO to invoke Section 69A in such circumstances. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration of the applications. The CIT(E) was directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration of the applications. The CIT(E) was directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was reopened to examine the source of purchase of immovable property, but no addition was made on that ground. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not make an addition for unexplained cash deposits, which was a separate issue not forming the basis of the reopening.
The Tribunal held that notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 were time-barred, referencing Supreme Court decisions and the concession made by the revenue. The notice dated 31.03.2021, though validated by the Ashish Agarwal case, was considered beyond the period prescribed.
The Tribunal noted that various judicial precedents, including decisions of other tribunals, have held that section 234E of the Act is not applicable to assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. The Tribunal followed these precedents and found no valuable guidance from the jurisdictional High Court to the contrary.
The Tribunal noted that various judicial precedents, including decisions of other tribunals, have held that section 234E of the Act is not applicable to assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. The Tribunal followed these precedents and found no valuable guidance from the jurisdictional High Court to the contrary.
The Tribunal noted that various judicial precedents, including decisions of other tribunals, have held that section 234E of the Act is not applicable to assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. The Tribunal followed these precedents and found no valuable guidance from the jurisdictional High Court to the contrary.
The Tribunal noted that various judicial precedents, including decisions of other tribunals, have held that section 234E of the Act is not applicable to assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. The Tribunal followed these precedents and found no valuable guidance from the jurisdictional High Court to the contrary.
The Tribunal noted that various judicial precedents, including decisions of other tribunals, have held that section 234E of the Act is not applicable to assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. The Tribunal followed these precedents and found no valuable guidance from the jurisdictional High Court to the contrary.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not invalid as the issue of capital gains arose from examining the bank account entries, which were a consequence of the initial reason for reopening. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's valuation of the land based on circle rates as no contrary evidence was provided by the assessee. However, the Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 54F for the purchase of a residential house as the sale deed was duly registered and stamp duty was paid.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was justified and upheld it. The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted any inquiry whatsoever regarding the impugned transaction of a Rs. 30,00,000/- cash payment for property purchase. The Tribunal noted that while the survey action under Section 133A and the statement recorded under Section 131(1A) had brought forth incriminating material, including a demand note and confirmation letter found in WhatsApp messages, the AO's assessment order and notices did not contain any reference to this material or any specific query raised with the assessee concerning these cash transactions. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the AO had examined the survey material, stating that the notices and questionnaires did not reflect any specific query on cash transactions, nor were they explained by the assessee in their submissions. The Tribunal also dismissed the argument that the property being in the wife's name absolved the assessee, as the AO had made no reference to the transaction at all. The Tribunal found the case squarely covered by clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 263(1), which deems an order erroneous if passed without making inquiries or verification that should have been made. The Tribunal distinguished the cited case law, including V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd., on the grounds that in those cases, the AO had conducted the requisite investigation, which was absent in the present case. Therefore, the PCIT's order holding the AO's order as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the digital evidence relied upon by the Revenue lacked legal sanctity and sufficient veracity. It found that the procedures for collecting and using electronic evidence, including the chain of custody and compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, were not adequately followed.
The Tribunal held that the digital evidence relied upon by the Revenue lacked legal sanctity and sufficient veracity. It found that the procedures for collecting and using electronic evidence, including the chain of custody and compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, were not adequately followed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening notice dated 27.04.2021 for AY 2017-18 was issued beyond the three-year period from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the approval for reopening should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority, not the Principal Commissioner, making the approval invalid. The reassessment proceedings were deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances. The AO's objections were primarily based on the admission of additional evidence, which the AO himself verified and found no adverse remarks on in remand reports.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed satisfaction of the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision, which considered a judgment from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Puri Constructions Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to verify whether the conditions mentioned in the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act have been fulfilled by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the delay of 124 days and that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal. However, considering that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to give the assessee another opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the non-service of notice under section 148, as the AO failed to use the updated address available. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory before framing an assessment, even if a return is filed in response to a notice under section 148. An assessment framed without such notice is bad in law and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the conditions of Section 68. The AO had failed to rebut the evidence provided by the assessee and had not conducted independent inquiries.
The Tribunal held that since an amendment to the Memorandum and bye-laws of the society is pending before the Competent Authority, the matter should be restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after taking into account the amended documents.
The Tribunal noted that the key person, Sh. Raj Kumar Modi, was already assessed on a substantive basis for similar income. Therefore, taxing the assessee on a protective basis could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153A was bad in law as no incriminating material was found at the Assessee's premises. It was further held that additions cannot be made solely based on a retracted statement of the Director without any corroborative evidence.
The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention that sufficient time was not given by the AO for submitting evidence and admitted additional documents. After considering a remand report from the AO, the CIT(A) held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus to establish the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the lenders and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made under Section 68, finding no reason to disturb the findings regarding the cash deposits. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider only income-yielding investments for disallowance, following a Special Bench decision.
The Assessing Officer accepted the explanation for Rs.8,90,000/- from bank withdrawals but added the remaining Rs.38,60,000/- as unexplained. The CIT(A) upheld the addition. The Tribunal found that the sale of agricultural land generated cash which was deposited in the bank, and the dates were proximate, making the explanation plausible.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the NFAC should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits, especially since an ex-parte assessment order was passed.
The Tribunal held that the Department failed to provide any evidence of service of notice under Section 148, which is a mandatory condition for reopening proceedings. The lack of proof of service vitiated the entire reassessment proceeding.
The Tribunal held that additions for bogus purchases cannot be made under Section 68. Considering the High Court's directions and the lack of cross-examination opportunity for a denying creditor, the Tribunal decided to estimate profit at 10% on the disputed purchases.
The Tribunal remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and consider all evidence. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee does not cooperate, the AO can proceed with the assessment as per law.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to treat reimbursements as Fees for Technical Services, considering them as managerial services. However, the issue of KDID being a Dependent Agent PE was not explicitly detailed as upheld or dismissed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates a partial allowance.