Loading ITAT cases…
670 orders · Page 6 of 14
The Tribunal held that once registration under Section 12AB is granted, the approval under Section 80G should also be granted, following the precedent set by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the immovable properties in question were not 'capital assets' as defined under section 2(47) of the Act. Therefore, the addition under section 56(2)(x) was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was beyond the period of limitation specified in Section 149. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds for the acquisition of a capital asset is includable in the cost of acquisition for determining capital gains. The benefit of indexation on such interest expenditure is also allowable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without affording an effective opportunity of hearing and by questioning the charitable nature of activities of an already registered entity. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the purchase of shares was not genuine due to manipulation and fabrication of documents, and thus the capital gains could not be substantiated. However, the issue of loans added under Section 68 was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the procedural lapse of filing Form 10ID after the due date under Section 139(1) but within the time for a belated return is not a fatal flaw if the substantive conditions for Section 115BAB are met. The assessee fulfilled all substantive conditions for the concessional tax rate.
The Tribunal held that the reassessments were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to attribute the assessee's failure to file particulars fully and truly, which is mandatory for reopening beyond four years. Consequently, the reassessments were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was merely a custodian of government money received from encashing bank guarantees. Following its earlier consistent view, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the amount received was an advance against share sale, duly recorded in the assessee's books. Since the transaction was disputed and not finalized, it could not be treated as unexplained money. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of 'dumb notings' and interest income from UCO Bank were not sustainable. However, the deletion of additions related to non-genuine losses in mutual fund transactions by the CIT(A) was upheld, following a coordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue involving the same supplier for the preceding assessment year was restricted to 5%. Following judicial consistency, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal to the extent of 5% of the disallowed amount.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds on merits. In the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the AO for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan from M/s. Utsav Securities Ltd. The addition under Section 68 was not sustainable, and consequently, the disallowance of interest on such loans was also deleted.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's case regarding the rate of disallowance, reducing the ad-hoc disallowance from 25% to 2% on business-related expenses. The ground regarding interest on housing loan was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars and case law support a lenient view on delayed filing of Form 10 and Form 10B, especially considering the initial years of e-filing. Therefore, the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11 should be allowed in principle.
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.
The Tribunal noted a lack of discussion by lower authorities on examining revenue records for crops grown. While the assessee also failed to provide complete revenue records, the Tribunal deemed a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.88 Lakhs just and proper in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that since the issue of TDS deduction on EDC payments was debatable, there was a reasonable cause for the assessee not to have deducted TDS. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271C was directed to be deleted.
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 the reopening was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to record the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly, especially since the reopening was initiated beyond four years. This failure vitiated the entire reassessment process.
The Tribunal held that once a search is initiated and material is found, a pending assessment under Section 143(3) cannot validly continue. The AO must proceed under the special provisions (Section 148 in this case) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT(E)'s orders, restored the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to plead and prove their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT(E)'s orders, restored the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to plead and prove their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan from M/s. Utsav Securities Ltd. The addition under Section 68 was not sustainable, and consequently, the disallowance of interest on such loans was also deleted.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings. Therefore, to ensure justice, the appeal was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.07.2022, for AY 2013-14, was barred by limitation. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), which conclusively interpreted the interplay between the amended provisions of sections 148 and 149, the old regime, and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). The judgment in Rajeev Bansal indicated that for AY 2015-16, notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 would be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA. The Tribunal found that the notice dated 28.07.2022 was issued beyond the permissible limitation period as specified under section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this time-barred notice were held to be bad in law and void ab initio. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed on this ground, and other grounds were not adjudicated upon as the primary legal issue of limitation was decided in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because an assessment order under section 143(3) had already been passed in the assessee's case. Therefore, the conditions for reopening under Explanation (2) Clause (b) were not met.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the significant delay in filing the appeals, stating that substantial justice should not be defeated by technicalities. The explanation provided by the assessee was considered sufficient cause.
The Tribunal held that the loans were raised in preceding years and their genuineness was accepted in those assessment years. The repayment was made out of business funds and bank overdrafts, supported by audited books and bank statements, and the AO failed to provide cogent evidence of unexplained cash or circular transactions.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. The CIT(E) is to decide the issue afresh based on facts and law.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) could not change the head of addition from section 68 to section 41(1). It also found that the addition under section 41(1) was not sustainable on merits, and the remaining addition under section 68 was also deleted due to sufficient evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the principle of natural justice was violated as the assessee was prevented from effectively presenting her case due to her husband's incarceration. The assessment and appellate orders were deemed unsustainable.
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 the reopening was beyond the statutory time limit of four years and that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening were recorded mechanically without proper application of mind. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents to support its decision.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to ascertain the due date for remittance of EPF and ESI contributions. The assessee is allowed to present factual matrix before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the significant delay in filing the appeals, stating that substantial justice should not be defeated by technicalities. The explanation provided by the assessee was considered sufficient cause.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illiteracy and age. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the AO for a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as defective due to non-appearance and failure to rectify defects. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval obtained under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind by the prescribed authority. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, the revisional order passed under Section 263, which sought to revise an invalid order, was also held to be invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the addition made was arbitrary and not based on cogent evidence. Collecting 906.900 grams of jewellery over 25-30 years of marriage is not abnormal, and the AO's yardstick for treating part of it as unexplained was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period specified in Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this notice were quashed.
The Tribunal held that once a search is initiated and material is found, a pending assessment under Section 143(3) cannot validly continue. The AO must proceed under the special provisions (Section 148 in this case) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Tribunal held that any order passed in the name of a deceased person without substituting the legal representatives is void ab initio. Since the penalty order was passed after the assessee's death without following the due procedure, it is non-est in the eyes of law.
The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153C was illegal because the Assessing Officer did not record a clear satisfaction that the seized materials had a "bearing" on the determination of the assessee's total income. This issue was settled by the Delhi High Court in Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO.
The Tribunal noted that the loan was given to a subsidiary in liquidation and that the investment and loan had been written off. Considering the liquidation order and RBI's order for compounding contravention, the CIT(A)'s sustaining of interest adjustment was set aside.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.