Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 10 of 14
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's order on similar facts for a different assessment year and deleted the addition made by the AO. The AO's estimation was not justified as it was made without verifying the assessee's claims.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided ledger accounts, lease deeds, and affiliation certificates. The assessee's counsel explained that loans were interest-free and taken to support charitable objects, and the rent paid was below market value. The Tribunal found that the CIT's rejection was based on a misunderstanding of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the deemed date of search for the assessee was 10.05.2022. As this date is after 01.04.2021, section 153C(3) of the Act, which prohibits assessments under section 153C for searches initiated on or after 01.04.2021, applies.
The tribunal noted that the appeal was defective and filed with a delay. Since the assessee did not rectify the defects or seek condonation, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-participation before the CIT(A), decided to grant one more opportunity based on principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. However, since the assessee did not appear and had failed to provide explanations for cash deposits during assessment and appellate proceedings, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to file any submissions before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a 'Kaccha Aarthia', had a reasonable cause for not getting accounts audited as per Section 44AB, as his gross commission was below the prescribed limits. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment, granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Pr. CIT), was mechanical and lacked application of mind. This was evidenced by a common approval order for 111 cases, without independent verification of each case.
The Tribunal held that the ex parte order by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice as no effective opportunity of hearing was provided. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an effective opportunity of hearing and did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Act by not providing proper reasons for the decision. The impugned order was found to be unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was unreasoned and passed without following the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notices and without providing an effective opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the PCIT(A)'s order was not reasoned, failing to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that a technical glitch in the application form should not be a ground for denying beneficial exemption. Substance should prevail over form, and the CIT(Exemption) should re-adjudicate the matter.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under RERA, computed as per prescribed interest rates, cannot be assessed as income from 'other sources' under Section 56 of the Act. It concluded that such compensation represents extinguishment of rights in a capital asset, qualifying as a 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(ii) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders were indeed passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Hyundai Rotem Company, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders were indeed passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Hyundai Rotem Company, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that the TPO released the order without any authentication, rendering it invalid in the eyes of the law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal found that the lack of proper authentication vitiated the assessment, relying on previous coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the AO was barred by limitation as it was not passed within the stipulated time after receiving the DRP's directions. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside as void-ab-initio.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's assumption of purchases and sales transactions between the assessee and M/s Kritvi Enterprises was factually incorrect, as no such transactions were found in the assessee's records. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's order for an identical issue in a previous assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit under section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, rendering it time-barred. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside.
For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on Ground 3, holding that in an unabated assessment year, no addition can be made under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material, following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The issue of the gift addition (Ground 4) was rendered academic. The ground regarding the DIN was dismissed due to a retrospective amendment. For AY 2018-19, regarding unexplained jewellery, the Tribunal found merit in both the assessee's and Revenue's contentions, partly allowing both appeals. A lump-sum addition of ₹1 lakh was deemed just and proper, not to be treated as a precedent. Regarding unexplained expenditure, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding that the seized documents contained rough notings in the handwriting of the assessee's brother, and the AO had not conducted further inquiry or produced corroborating evidence. The ground regarding the DIN was dismissed. The assessee's appeals were partly allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was also partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that remuneration paid to the Director/Chief Scientific Officer for scientific research is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). However, ESOP expenses were confirmed as disallowed for certain assessment years, while allowed for others based on previous rulings.
The Tribunal held that the TPO released the order without any authentication, rendering it invalid in the eyes of the law and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal found that the lack of proper authentication vitiated the assessment, relying on previous coordinate bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that no transfer pricing adjustment is warranted on account of AMP expenses, following its own previous decisions and High Court rulings. Certain corporate tax grounds were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal noted that there were issues with the jurisdiction and notices issued. Given that the assessee could not furnish books of account before the lower authorities, and the Department had no objection, the matter was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It further held that since the order passed under Section 263 was quashed by a coordinate bench, the consequent assessment order became infructuous and void.
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. It held that the assessee's claims were based on prevailing legal interpretations at the time of filing returns, and subsequent retrospective amendments or Supreme Court judgments did not establish malafide intent for penalty imposition.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of commission and brokerage expenses, holding that the assessee had provided sufficient details and TDS was deducted. The Tribunal also deleted the addition on account of outstanding debts written off, allowing it as a business loss based on judicial precedents.
The Tribunal acknowledged divergent judicial views on bogus purchases and decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the alleged bogus purchases. This decision was explicitly stated not to be a precedent.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the cash sales were part of the disclosed turnover and the cash deposit was sufficiently explained by the books of account, thus deleting the addition. Regarding unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders, deleting the additions.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment solely for the purpose of verifying the source of cash deposits, without a categorical finding of escaped income, is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of commission and brokerage expenses, holding that the assessee had provided sufficient details and TDS was deducted. The Tribunal also deleted the addition on account of outstanding debts written off, allowing it as a business loss based on judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to substantiate the addition as the assessee's name did not appear in any relevant documents from the survey. Consequently, the addition made by the lower authorities was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds and held that if the reassessment order under Section 147 is invalid, the subsequent revisionary proceedings under Section 263 are also invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order and the revisionary proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide reasonable opportunities for the assessee to be heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid because the approval under Section 151 was obtained from the wrong authority. The reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to this procedural defect.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to make submissions. The CIT(A) was directed to issue notice to the assessee's email address.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) provided multiple opportunities, but the assessee failed to submit required documents. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was served on April 1, 2021, the reassessment proceedings should have followed the amended procedure under Sections 148A and 148. As this procedure was not followed, the reassessment order was deemed bad in law and quashed.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions and without adhering to principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the underlying additions for which the penalty was levied have been deleted, the penalty itself has no basis. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the deletion of penalty deserves to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the cash sales were part of the disclosed turnover and the cash deposit was sufficiently explained by the books of account, thus deleting the addition. Regarding unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders, deleting the additions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's survey statement clearly indicated that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was already included in a larger disclosure. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities constituted a double addition.
The ITAT held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable in law. This was because the additions made were not based on any specific incriminating material found during the search, and the assessment year in question was unabated.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not genuine, only the profit embedded in such purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Parasmal Jain, a profit rate of 5% was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal decided that a lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the alleged bogus purchases would be just and proper, without setting a precedent. The assessee's book entries were rejected to this extent.