Loading ITAT cases…
441 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the appeal lies with the Bangalore Tribunal, not the Delhi Tribunal, based on the location of the Assessing Officer as per Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs ABC Papers Ltd. Therefore, both appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 151 of the Act was mechanical and arbitrary, lacking proper application of mind by the approving authority, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the reopening proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted replies before the CIT(A) but failed to submit documents or written submissions before the AO. The CIT(A) decided the appeal for non-filing of documents. The Tribunal considered that the assessee was out of India and the Indian director of the company had died. In the interest of justice, it was considered expedient to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the AO, and restore the matter to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant assessee. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the substantive grounds of appeal related to the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on two primary grounds. Firstly, the AO's penalty notice failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority (CIT(A)) had not rebutted this stand of the assessee, and this lack of specificity in the notice was held to be a mandatory requirement, as supported by the decisions in PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and PCIT Vs. Gopal Kumar Goyal. Secondly, the Tribunal observed that the issue of unexplained cash credits under section 68 is subjective and requires appreciation of evidence. It was also noted that the assessee's return income had been accepted. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that such subjective issues do not attract the penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the penalty was deleted in its entirety.
The assessee requested withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not dispute this submission.
The tribunal acknowledged that the assessee is in the business of dairy products and declared a gross profit of 10.5%. While the assessee attempted to prove the source, the failure to provide supporting documents was noted. However, the revenue's disbelieving stance was also not fully justified.
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 and were quashed.
The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive, and the limitation period for final assessment orders must be considered jointly. Finding that the assessment orders were indeed passed beyond the statutory time limits, the Tribunal quashed them as being without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to establish the claimants as legal representatives as per Section 2(29) of the Act and Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, there was no material on record indicating proceedings against the appellant under Section 159 of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is a procedural defect and should not deny the claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC), especially when DTAA provisions are beneficial. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal stated that procedural laws should aid substantive rights.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 16,72,272/- as unexplained investment. It found the supporting documents to be lacking in authenticity due to their post-search issuance and the jeweler's confirmation to be unreliable for lack of specific details. The benefit of CBDT instruction regarding jewelry was also found inapplicable to bullion.
The Tribunal ruled that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive. It found that the final assessment orders in these cases were indeed passed beyond the statutory limitation period, rendering them without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal considered the prayer made by the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee, supported by a letter dated 02.02.2026, requesting the withdrawal of ITA No.3723/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2016-17. The reason for withdrawal was that the present appeal was a duplicate of another appeal filed by the appellant. The Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue had no objection to this request. After hearing the contentions of both parties and perusing the available record, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment or the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was decided.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders in the respective appeals were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Following the ratio of the Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. case, the Tribunal concluded that the orders passed beyond limitation are without jurisdiction and therefore 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. 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 and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive, and the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 is applicable. Examining the timelines, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders in these cases were indeed passed beyond the statutory time limits.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C of the Act is a self-contained code with its own timelines, and the general limitation period under Section 153 does not apply to the final assessment order passed under Section 144C(13). The legislative intent is to provide an alternate dispute resolution mechanism, not to shorten the assessment process.
The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and overlapping, and the limitation period for passing the final assessment order under Section 144C(13) must be considered in conjunction with Section 153. It was found that the final assessment orders in these cases were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period.
The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive, and the limitation period for passing final assessment orders must consider both. It was found that the assessment orders in question were indeed passed beyond the prescribed time limits.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C and Section 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and overlapping, and the limitation period for passing the final assessment order must be considered in conjunction with Section 153. As the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation, they were quashed.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special mechanism for completing assessments after a draft order, and its timelines operate notwithstanding the general limitations under Section 153. The special regime of Section 144C governs the time 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 the draft order stage. Section 153's general limitations do not apply to the final assessment order passed under Section 144C(13).
The Tribunal, following the ratio in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., held that the final assessment orders in these cases were indeed passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, these orders were quashed.
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, the assessment orders were considered without jurisdiction and quashed.
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. Therefore, the assessment orders were quashed as being without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) and there could be valid reasons for non-response, such as reliance on a tax advisor. The Tribunal found that the AO had not sufficiently established that the assessee was actually served with the notices.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 are mutually inclusive and the time limits prescribed in Section 153 are applicable to assessments under Section 144C. Consequently, the final assessment order, having been passed beyond the prescribed time limit, was quashed as being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special statutory mechanism with its own timelines for completing assessments after the draft order stage. Section 153 governs the time up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the time from the draft order to the final assessment.
The Tribunal found that the approval for reopening granted by the prescribed authority was a mere mechanical concurrence with the Assessing Officer's proposal. It held that such a non-independent approval renders the impugned reopening invalid, citing the precedent of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that while the principle of allowing such expenditure was established, the assessee had significant lapses in providing complete documentary evidence. Therefore, a further partial relief was granted, but with a rider that it would not create a precedent.
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 and were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders in the respective appeals were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Following the ratio laid down in the case of Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the final assessment orders passed beyond the period of limitation are without jurisdiction and consequently quashed them. The Tribunal noted that the dates furnished by the assessees, showing the final assessment orders were passed beyond the limitation period, were not disputed by the revenue. Since the assessees succeeded on the legal issue of the validity of the final assessment order, the Tribunal did not adjudicate other grounds of appeal, leaving them open. The Tribunal also observed that both sides are at liberty to revive the appeals in case the Hon'ble Apex Court allows the appeal of the revenue in the case of Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. The operative direction was to quash the final assessment orders.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not satisfactorily proven their explanation for the cash deposits. However, in the interest of justice, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh was deemed appropriate, with the condition that it would not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal held that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh would be just and proper, with a rider that it would not be considered a precedent, granting relief of Rs. 9,26,500/- to the assessee. Regarding Section 115BBE, it was held that the provision applies to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders in all three appeals were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Following the ratio laid down in the case of Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal concluded that assessment orders passed beyond the period of limitation are without jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the dates provided by the assessees, which were not disputed by the Revenue, clearly showed that the final assessment orders were passed after the statutory due dates. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders in all the respective appeals. As the assessees succeeded on the legal issue of limitation, the Tribunal did not adjudicate other grounds of appeal, leaving them open. The Tribunal also observed that both parties are at liberty to revive the appeals if the Hon'ble Apex Court allows the Revenue's appeal in the case of Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. The operative direction was to quash the assessment orders.
The Tribunal noted that the company could not substantiate claims of being cheated and that the bank account was not reflected in its financial statements. It was held that the assessee was part of an accommodation entry business and should be assessed on the profit element, not the entire credit figure. The commission addition was deleted as per the first appellate authority's order, and the additions for unexplained cash credits were restricted to an estimated profit element of 5%.
The Tribunal noted that the company could not substantiate claims of being cheated and that the bank account was not reflected in its financial statements. It was held that the assessee was part of an accommodation entry business and should be assessed on the profit element, not the entire credit figure. The commission addition was deleted as per the first appellate authority's order, and the additions for unexplained cash credits were restricted to an estimated profit element of 5%.
The Tribunal noted that the company could not substantiate claims of being cheated and that the bank account was not reflected in its financial statements. It was held that the assessee was part of an accommodation entry business and should be assessed on the profit element, not the entire credit figure. The commission addition was deleted as per the first appellate authority's order, and the additions for unexplained cash credits were restricted to an estimated profit element of 5%.
The Tribunal noted that the company could not substantiate claims of being cheated and that the bank account was not reflected in its financial statements. It was held that the assessee was part of an accommodation entry business and should be assessed on the profit element, not the entire credit figure. The commission addition was deleted as per the first appellate authority's order, and the additions for unexplained cash credits were restricted to an estimated profit element of 5%.
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 and were quashed.