Loading ITAT cases…
958 orders · Page 3 of 20
The ITAT held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were void-ab-initio as the AO should have invoked Section 153C, given that the reopening was based on material seized from a third-party search. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment was upheld.
The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note recorded by the AO for multiple assessment years is fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. Consequently, the assessments framed under this section were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's business had commenced, all revenue expenses incurred after the setup date are eligible for deduction. The disallowance of expenses was directed to be allowed in full. The issue of TDS deduction was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal found that the assessee may not have been given a proper opportunity to present its case due to pending statutory compliances. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes to allow for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without an effective hearing and in violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid because the approval for reopening was obtained from the wrong authority. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IB(10), finding that the assessee met the conditions despite the AO's objections. The Tribunal also deleted the additions for bogus purchases and notional rent, as no incriminating material was found during the search for the assessment year under consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's plea for a fresh assessment and the revenue's no objection, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on an incorrect assumption of facts and constituted a change of opinion without any new tangible material. The assessee had already accounted for the depreciation in its return.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee resides within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the decision in Kamal Kant Kamboj v. ITO, which disallowed exemption for property purchased in a spouse's name, squarely covers the assessee's case.
The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd, which held that proceedings under Section 153C could only be initiated for assessment years within 10 years from the end of the financial year in which the search was conducted. Therefore, the assessments for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 were beyond the permissible period.
The Tribunal held that the seat of the Assessing Officer determines the jurisdiction of the Tribunal Benches. Therefore, the Delhi Bench could not exercise jurisdiction over this case.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the correct facts when assuming jurisdiction for reassessment, as evidenced by the issuance of a fresh show cause notice with corrected information. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed due to the faulty assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the genuine explanation provided by the assessee. The matter was set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. This failure vitiated the reopening itself.
The Tribunal held that the hospital's activities qualified as 'medical relief' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, and the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable. Additions made by the AO treating surplus as business income and denying exemption were deleted. However, some disallowances related to TDS were remanded for verification.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and the documents on record. It acknowledged the settled accounting principle that in cases of running deposits and withdrawals, a holistic approach considering both is fair and just. The calculation of peak values helps avoid excessive additions by accounting for the possibility that deposits might originate from earlier withdrawals. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) with a direction to verify the peak balances, as filed by the assessee and extracted in the order, with the bank account entries. Only the verified peak balance was to be added in the hands of the assessee. This decision was to apply mutatis mutandis to AY 2018-19 as well. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The case was restored to the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity for hearing and decide the issues on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the correct facts when assuming jurisdiction for reassessment, as evidenced by the issuance of a fresh show cause notice with corrected information. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed due to the faulty assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C for AY 2011-12 was beyond the ten-year period prescribed by law. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to this notice was annulled.
The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds, upholding the deletion of additions. The assessee had explained the genuineness of purchases, and the reopening reasons were not discussed regarding the assessee's failure to disclose particulars.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and the documents on record. It acknowledged the settled accounting principle that in cases of running deposits and withdrawals, a holistic approach considering both is fair and just. The calculation of peak values helps avoid excessive additions by accounting for the possibility that deposits might originate from earlier withdrawals. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) with a direction to verify the peak balances, as filed by the assessee and extracted in the order, with the bank account entries. Only the verified peak balance was to be added in the hands of the assessee. This decision was to apply mutatis mutandis to AY 2018-19 as well. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's ruling in PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessment years in question were beyond the 10-year period for initiating proceedings under Section 153C.
The Tribunal held that the AO's assumption regarding the immediate cessation of legal tender and the requirement for prompt deposit was flawed. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash from sales during a festive period and that the books of account were not rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat Rs. 60,18,405/- as returned goods and not taxable. For the remaining Rs. 26,00,000/-, the Tribunal sustained the addition of 15% as gross profit, considering the sales were not disputed and the purchases were claimed as accommodation entries.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10-IC was a procedural lapse and not a substantive one, especially since the form was available with the CPC at the time of processing. The assessee's intention to opt for the concessional rate was clear.
The Tribunal found that the assessee could not justify the source of purchase of property. The appeal was remitted to the CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh after allowing the assessee an opportunity to adduce evidence, specifically bank statements showing loan disbursement.
The Tribunal held that substantive and protective assessments must be adjudicated together to ensure correct taxability. It agreed with the assessee's suggestion to remand the matter for holistic adjudication.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A was not applicable as no unexplained money or articles were found in the assessee's possession. The addition of gross commission was also deemed incorrect, and expenses should be allowed. Following a precedent, 20% of the gross commission was to be treated as income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient cause, considering the assessee's age and illiteracy. Technicalities should not defeat substantial rights, and the matter should be decided on merits.
The Tribunal held that a significant portion of the receipts were anonymous donations exempt under Section 115BBC(2). After accounting for expenses and exempt donations, there was an excess of expenditure over income, rendering the income non-taxable.
The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. This was to be done after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the leave encashment exemption. This was based on the fact that the employer is governed by rules framed by the Ministry of Education and a High Court ruling that employees governed by state or central service rules are eligible for the exemption.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) was not applicable to CCPS issued to the holding company. For RPS issued to an unrelated party, the Tribunal found the valuation of Rs. 1000 per share to be in accordance with Rule 11UA, especially since the shares were later transferred at the same price.
The ITAT upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision that the assessment was barred by limitation. The Tribunal followed its previous orders on the same issue, thus quashing the impugned assessment.
The Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case due to lack of representation. The issue of cash deposits during demonetization was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's ruling in PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessment years in question were beyond the permissible 10-year period for initiating proceedings under Section 153C.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's ruling in PCIT Vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessment years in question were beyond the 10-year period for initiating proceedings under Section 153C.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing substantial justice over technicalities. Both parties agreed to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration of the registration application.
The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the lower authorities, stating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the nature and source of the cash deposit. The Tribunal found the explanation provided by the assessee to be unsubstantiated and lacking corroborative evidence.
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be genuine. It held that rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of delay was not just and proper and that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay.
The Tribunal held that the hospital's activities qualified as 'medical relief' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, and the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable. Additions made by the AO treating surplus as business income and denying exemption were deleted. However, some disallowances related to TDS were remanded for verification.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were supported by recorded business receipts (cash sales) and the assessee had discharged its initial burden. The additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were found to be arbitrary and erroneous, amounting to double taxation.
The ITAT upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision that the assessment was barred by limitation. The Tribunal followed its previous orders on the same issue, thus quashing the impugned assessment.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The NFAC was directed to consider the assessee's submissions and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the TPO wrongly invoked the provisions of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act for AMP expenses. Following jurisdictional precedents, it was decided that in the absence of a specific transaction for brand promotion between the assessee and its associated enterprise, no transfer pricing adjustment could be made.
The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal is consequential to the quantum appeal. Since the quantum appeal is still pending before the CIT(A), the penalty appeal should also be restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was not sustainable in law because the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening reasons. This failure violated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO.