Loading ITAT cases…
958 orders · Page 5 of 20
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 were beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening beyond three years, quashing these notices. For Assessment Year 2021-22, the addition was restricted by reducing the GP rate. For Assessment Year 2022-23, the assessment proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction. For Assessment Year 2023-24, an addition under Section 41(1) was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the purchase and sale of shares, and that CCL International Ltd. was not a penny stock company. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the transactions to be genuine.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reliance on the Gujarat Electricity Board case was misplaced. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that an appeal against a Section 143(1) intimation is maintainable when it is issued during the pendency of scrutiny assessment proceedings under Section 143(2).
The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantiated the source of funds for the property purchase. It also noted that the CIT(A) passed a mechanical order, reproducing submissions from another case, and failed to appreciate the documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under section 270A was vague as it did not specify the limb of the section under which the penalty was initiated. Therefore, the notice and the consequent penalty order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the notice was served after April 1, 2021, it should have been treated as a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer's failure to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 148A renders the assessment order invalid.
The Tribunal held that interest on outstanding receivables to an Associated Enterprise (AE) is an international transaction, but no further adjustment is required if the assessee has already factored in the impact of receivables on working capital. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit for calculating alternate tax under Section 115JB.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C was a double addition and deleted it. It also dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding unaccounted scrap sales and cash salary expenses, finding them to be without merit or misconceived.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the investments were recorded in the books and their source was explained by third-party funding. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the conditions for invoking Section 69 were not met.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 were beyond the six-year limitation period prescribed under Section 153C read with Section 153A. The same reasoning was applied to AY 2015-16.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the investments were recorded in the books and their source was explained by third-party funding. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the conditions for invoking Section 69 were not met.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 were beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening beyond three years, quashing these notices. For Assessment Year 2021-22, the addition was restricted by reducing the GP rate. For Assessment Year 2022-23, the assessment proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction. For Assessment Year 2023-24, an addition under Section 41(1) was deleted.
The Tribunal found that while notices were issued, the assessee failed to appear, leading to an ex-parte order. The legal grounds raised by the assessee were not properly dealt with.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were breached as the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 132(4A) is rebuttable and cannot be used for framing a regular assessment. Suspicion cannot replace proof, and the revenue cannot deny expenses without contrary material.
The Tribunal set aside the TPO's action in rejecting Cyber Media Research & Services Ltd. as a comparable and restored the matter to the TPO for fresh examination. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 149 of the Act, as the limitation expired on March 31, 2019. Consequently, the reassessment made pursuant to this notice was quashed as void ab initio.
The CIT(A) held that the notice issued under Section 153C was beyond the ten assessment year period prescribed by law, following a Delhi High Court judgment. Therefore, the assessment order was annulled.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits through mobile phone trading was plausible, the AO erred in adding the entire amount. A reasonable Gross Profit (GP) rate should be applied to the turnover.
The Tribunal held that since the additions were based on material impounded during a survey, the assessment framed under Section 143(3) was fundamentally defective. The assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was deemed bad in law and void ab initio, leading to the quashing of the reassessment.
The Tribunal held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessment years and assessees under Section 153D vitiates the entire assessment. The amendment to Section 292BC, which validates defective approvals, is not applicable as the approval was granted prior to its effective date.
The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C was a double addition and deleted it. It also dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding unaccounted scrap sales and cash salary expenses, finding them to be without merit or misconceived.
The Tribunal held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessment years and assessees under Section 153D vitiates the entire assessment. The amendment to Section 292BC, which validates defective approvals, is not applicable as the approval was granted prior to its effective date.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to submit the relevant documents and be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to submit the relevant documents and be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a hearing.
The Tribunal held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessment years and assessees under Section 153D vitiates the entire assessment. The amendment to Section 292BC, which validates defective approvals, is not applicable as the approval was granted prior to its effective date.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 were beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening beyond three years, quashing these notices. For Assessment Year 2021-22, the addition was restricted by reducing the GP rate. For Assessment Year 2022-23, the assessment proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction. For Assessment Year 2023-24, an addition under Section 41(1) was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record any satisfaction, making the entire proceeding vitiated and void-ab-initio. The AO could not produce any record of satisfaction for the reopening.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were vitiated due to lack of proper approval under Section 153D. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was vitiated. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this approval was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the validity of the original assessment proceedings can be challenged in revisionary proceedings under Section 263. It further held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years, as used to assume jurisdiction under Section 153C, is fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction, rendering the assessment order void.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions based solely on 'dumb documents' without corroborative evidence or independent inquiry. For other seized documents, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow peak credit addition and telescoping of cash found.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were vitiated due to lack of proper approval under Section 153D. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof by providing documentary evidence for the share transactions. The Revenue failed to controvert the assessee's evidence or demonstrate that the AO made independent inquiries.
The Tribunal held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessment years and assessees under Section 153D vitiates the entire assessment. The amendment to Section 292BC, which validates defective approvals, is not applicable as the approval was granted prior to its effective date.
The Tribunal found that while the partnership firm was likely dissolved, the nexus between the dissolution amount and the bank deposit needed further verification. The issue was restored to the AO for de novo examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) passed an ex-parte order without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the principle of natural justice was breached as the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and was not given adequate opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that an assessment framed under Section 153C of the Act, where the satisfaction note was recorded after April 1, 2021, is bad in law. This is because Section 153C(3) states that the section does not apply to searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021, making such assessments void ab initio.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) passed an ex-parte order without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessment years and assessees under Section 153D vitiates the entire assessment. The amendment to Section 292BC, which validates defective approvals, is not applicable as the approval was granted prior to its effective date.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions based solely on 'dumb documents' without corroborative evidence or independent inquiry. For other seized documents, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow peak credit addition and telescoping of cash found.
The Tribunal observed the assessee's request for withdrawal due to inadvertent filing and bonafide mistake. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that while the acquisition of software is capital in nature, the write-off of unusable software licenses, which had become obsolete, should be allowed as an expenditure. The Tribunal sustained the ground raised in the appeal of the assessee regarding this write-off.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity to make submissions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should be allowed an opportunity to examine the facts regarding sundry creditors. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was sent back to the AO for proper verification.
The Tribunal held that the principle of natural justice was breached as the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and was not given adequate opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo determination.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to admit and decide the assessee's additional grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the re-opening of assessment.