Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 4 of 14
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions/disallowances. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions/disallowances. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions/disallowances. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions/disallowances. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions/disallowances. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions/disallowances. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions/disallowances. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a common satisfaction note without correlating seized material to specific assessment years is defective. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society, the notice issued under Section 153C and the consequent assessment were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for Section 54F deduction. It noted that the husband, in a similar situation, was allowed the deduction. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grounds of appeal and deleted the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that common expenses like rent, electricity, and security should be apportioned based on the turnover of companies with activities during the year. For other expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 80% of the disallowance as the expenses were partially for business and partially personal.
For AY 2016-17, the tribunal held that the reopening notice was vitiated due to procedural lapses and allowed the assessee's appeal. For AY 2015-16, the tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits and law.
The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 143(1) were outside the scope of permissible adjustments under that section, especially for assessment years prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. Therefore, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening by way of a speaking order, as mandated by Supreme Court decisions. This failure vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of excess cash found at business premises to the AO for reconciliation, directing that no addition be made if cash sales claims are correct. Regarding cash found with a third party, the AO was directed to apply a 20% GP rate on such cash sales.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were barred by limitation as they were completed on March 18, 2016, which is beyond the one-year period from the end of the financial year in which the Section 148 notice was served (i.e., March 31, 2015). Therefore, the assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the Section 14A disallowance, holding that investments were made from own surplus funds. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for warranty provisions, following previous consistent rulings. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT was mechanical, merely recording 'yes', and did not reflect an independent application of mind. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated.
For AY 2016-17, the tribunal held that the reopening notice was vitiated due to procedural lapses and allowed the assessee's appeal. For AY 2015-16, the tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits and law.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was unsustainable as the assessee had sufficient own funds exceeding borrowed funds. Regarding gratuity, the addition was restricted to the unpaid balance after considering prepaid amounts.
The Tribunal found that additional evidence filed by the assessee, including segmental accounts, was relevant. For complete justice, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO)/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for verification and benchmarking of international transactions.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on material already available on record and examined during the original assessment, constituting a mere change of opinion. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law.
The Tribunal set aside the issue of excess cash found at business premises to the AO for reconciliation, directing that no addition be made if cash sales claims are correct. Regarding cash found with a third party, the AO was directed to apply a 20% GP rate on such cash sales.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A). It agreed with the legal basis that AMP expenses are generally revenue in nature and do not create an enduring asset. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had settled pending litigation under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, making the interest income non-taxable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it. It held that technicalities should not impede substantive justice and restored the case to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had some explanation for cash sales, a disproportionate increase before demonetization raised doubts. However, the Revenue's rejection of the assessee's supporting records was also not fully justified. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 6 lakh was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without providing the AO an opportunity to examine and rebut it, violating Rule 46A(3). The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to obtain a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions regarding interest on refunds were not adequately addressed in the first appellate orders. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not be considered an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer himself submitted a favorable remand report. Therefore, the appeal against the deletion of additions under Section 68 was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that 'on money' received from the sale of immovable property should be treated as part of the sale consideration and taxed under the head 'Income from Capital Gains', not as unexplained money under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that 'on money' received from the sale of an immovable property should be treated as part of the sale consideration and taxed under the head 'Income from Capital Gains', not as unexplained money under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition is a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed bad in law and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were barred by limitation as per Section 153(2) of the Act. The assessments should have been completed within one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under Section 148 was served, i.e., by March 31, 2015.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter back for de novo determination. The Tribunal clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the case and the CIT(E) should pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessments were barred by limitation as they were completed on March 18, 2016, which is beyond the one-year period from the end of the financial year in which the Section 148 notice was served (i.e., March 31, 2015). Therefore, the assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that 'on money' received from the sale of immovable property should be treated as part of the sale consideration and taxed under the head 'Income from Capital Gains', not as unexplained money under Section 69A.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 153C were barred by limitation as they were issued after an inordinate delay. Additionally, the Tribunal found the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C to be defective, as it was borrowed and lacked independent application of mind.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the satisfactory reasons provided by the assessee. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after issuing a new notice.
The Tribunal held that the seized material did not mention the assessee's name, thus it could not be considered incriminating material against him. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was not sustainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, and NBFC registration, to establish the genuineness of the loan transaction. The AO failed to rebut this evidence or provide contrary material.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were vitiated and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter back for de novo determination. The Tribunal clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the issues and the CIT(E) should pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's land holdings and inheritance of a money lending business, found that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- would be just and proper. The remaining additions of Rs. 19,00,000/- were deleted.
The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(E) pointed out several discrepancies, such as the non-submission of the original society constitution, expense vouchers, details of charitable activities, beneficiary details, and documentary evidence for pharmaceutical contributions, these discrepancies alone did not definitively establish that the assessee was not conducting charitable activities. The Tribunal observed that for granting registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G, the CIT(E) must examine and consider whether the assessee is indeed performing charitable activities, which it found was not adequately done in this case. The Tribunal also noted that even during the hearing, the assessee's AR was unable to produce the society's bye-laws. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit both issues back to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to re-examine the issues, provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard, and the assessee is directed to furnish complete details and evidence. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the Section 14A disallowance, holding that investments were made from own surplus funds. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance for warranty provisions, following previous consistent rulings. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not properly examine the revenue records to justify the disallowance. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.88 Lakhs was deemed just and proper, with the condition that it would not set a precedent.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.