Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 5 of 14
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153C were invalid because the deemed date of search (based on the satisfaction note) was after April 1, 2021, making the amended sub-section (3) of section 153C applicable. Consequently, 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 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 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 held that the conversion of a partner's capital balance to an unsecured loan upon retirement, without cash involvement, does not warrant an addition under Section 68. It also noted that Section 115BBE is not applicable to the assessment year in question as the amendment was prospective.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable as no fresh consideration was received during the year of allotment; the shares were issued in lieu of pre-existing CCDs. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the balance sheet as of March 31, 2016, was correctly used for valuation as the consideration for the CCDs was received in the preceding assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessments framed under Section 153C were barred by limitation. The assessment years fell outside the permissible block period of 10 years from the date of the satisfaction note.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the additions made were not based on the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents to quash the impugned reopening.
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 found no merit in the Revenue's grounds. It noted that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions in the searched party's hands, thus rejecting the Revenue's attempt to revive predictive additions. The Section 14A disallowance was also rejected as there was no exempt income, following established precedent.
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 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 Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening did not indicate that the assessee had failed to disclose all relevant particulars fully and truly in the original assessment. Relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT, the Tribunal quashed the reopening.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had failed to provide the required details to the CIT(E). However, considering the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.
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 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 notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 but communicated to the assessee on 16.04.2021. This meant the notice was served after the old regime's deadline and should have followed the new regime's procedures.
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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessments framed under Section 153C were barred by limitation. The assessment years fell outside the permissible block period of 10 years from the date of the satisfaction note.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to file on time. The appeal was then restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.
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 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 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. Following its own precedents, the Tribunal held that a charitable trust, even if assessed as an AOP and not claiming Section 11 exemption, should be taxed at normal slab rates applicable to individuals, not the Maximum Marginal Rate.
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 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 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 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 found that while some entries could be related to Gopi Constech Pvt. Ltd., a significant portion totaling Rs. 25,03,968/- could not be verified from the company's ledger accounts due to mismatches. However, the Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, deleting the addition.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure completeness and avoid contradictory findings, especially since the 12A registration cancellation was quashed.
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 activities of the Aligarh Development Authority are charitable in nature, as they are sovereign functions for the state and not trade or commerce for profit. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying exemption.
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 activities of the Aligarh Development Authority are charitable in nature, as they are sovereign functions for the state and not trade or commerce for profit. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying exemption.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's action to be illegal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under section 153C were invalid because the deemed date of search (based on the satisfaction note) was after April 1, 2021, making the amended sub-section (3) of section 153C applicable. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's explanation of oversight to be a sufficient cause. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a decision on merits.
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 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 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 delay was not supported by cogent reasons and was not due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was served a copy of the lower appellate order.
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 observed that the assessee had furnished details to the AO, who denied the expenses without referring to them. The CIT(A)'s orders were also found to be non-speaking. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the impugned order being sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to provide complete evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the impugned order being sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to provide complete evidence.
The Tribunal held that disallowing exemption under Section 11 solely on the ground of delay in filing the return is illegal, especially when the delay was due to COVID-19 and the audit report was available before the assessment order.