Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 14 of 17
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to delay without properly considering the assessee's claim of non-service of notices and closure of operations. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal found no reason for the Revenue to contest the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, the Tribunal sustained the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the due dates for deposit and consider the assessee's contentions regarding payments made after holidays. The AO is to decide the issue in accordance with law and the cited precedents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard, breaching the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh determination on merits.
The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval for issuing a Section 148 notice must be obtained from the PCCIT, not the PCIT. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed due to improper sanction.
The Tribunal held that Section 153C proceedings initiated based on a satisfaction note recorded after April 1, 2021, are invalid. This is because the amended Section 153C(3) states that the section shall not apply to searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal held that Section 153C proceedings initiated based on a satisfaction note recorded after April 1, 2021, are invalid. This is because the amended Section 153C(3) states that the section shall not apply to searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the issues afresh after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act was illegal and bad in law. This was because the notice did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits from its regular cash sales, and the AO's addition resulted in double addition as cash sales were already part of the accepted turnover. The addition was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that separate books of accounts are not mandatory for claiming Section 10A exemption, relying on CBDT circulars. However, it upheld the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D as computed by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case. The appeal was dismissed primarily on the grounds of tax effect being below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, and also considering the Madras High Court's ruling on Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment was vitiated due to invalid sanction under Section 151. This was based on the fact that approval was obtained from both the JCIT and PCIT, whereas for reopening beyond four years, only the PCIT's approval was required.
The Tribunal held that even though the compensation was transferred to OIPL, the assessee continued to act as the rightful title holder in land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the compensation amount should be taxed in the assessee's hands, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was invalid as it did not demonstrate that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was invalid as it did not demonstrate that the seized documents had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 153C were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not confronting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee with the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim regarding expense reimbursements.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) ignored the previous Tribunal's findings and repeated the same order. The Tribunal accepted the revised Form 10 filed as additional evidence and directed the AO to examine it and decide accordingly.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC order lacked details on proper service of notices. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the penalty proceedings were embedded in the quashed assessment order, the penalty proceedings also deserve to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that disallowances made under Section 143(1)(a) for delayed deposit of employee contributions to welfare funds are not sustainable, following High Court and Coordinate Bench decisions.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond the period specified under Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond the period specified under Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the entire tax liability was discharged before the issuance of the Section 148 notice, the tax sought to be evaded would be NIL. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without any fresh tangible material subsequent to the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment was bad in law and the consequent order was quashed.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the documents presented. It noted that the assessee had made efforts to reconcile deposits and withdrawals across eight bank accounts. A perusal of the statement dated 11.02.2025 indicated that deposits were matched with withdrawals. Regarding the remaining difference of Rs. 2,83,000/-, the Tribunal found it plausible and believable that this amount was deposited out of past savings. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. The principle derived is that if an assessee provides a plausible explanation supported by documentary evidence for cash deposits, even a small remaining difference can be accepted as out of past savings, leading to deletion of the addition. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10DA is a directory compliance and not a mandatory statutory requirement. Therefore, late filing of Form 10DA would not be fatal to the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80JJAA.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation of shares, which was higher than the AO's valuation, should be considered. Furthermore, since the shares were allotted to existing shareholders and funds were received in preceding years, the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 36(1)(vii), it is sufficient for the assessee to show that the debt has become irrecoverable and has been written off in the books of account. Considering the nature of the assessee's business and prior judicial precedents, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should have been decided on merit and not dismissed for non-prosecution without a proper opportunity of being heard. The case was restored to the NFAC for a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the appeals should have been decided on merit and not dismissed for non-prosecution without a proper opportunity of being heard. The case was restored to the NFAC for a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that separate books of accounts are not mandatory for claiming Section 10A exemption, relying on CBDT circulars. However, it upheld the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D as computed by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that most of the Revenue's grounds were covered by previous decisions in favour of the assessee, often from earlier assessment years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletions in most instances, finding no merit in the Revenue's arguments.
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It upheld disallowances for foreign currency fluctuation loss, accrued interest income, unsupported expenditure, gratuity provision, and taxes paid. However, it allowed deletions or reductions for business promotion expenses, LC charges, and software development expenses.
The tribunal deleted the disallowance of professional charges paid to a US-based entity, citing the "make available" clause in the DTAA. It also deleted disallowances related to prior period expenses, allowing them as deductible. Other grounds were rejected due to lack of evidence or being decided in preceding years.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) granted partial relief without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper discussion of facts. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) granted partial relief without sufficient corroborative evidence or proper discussion of facts. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal quashed the notice under section 148 dated 11.04.2022 issued for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46. In this case, the Revenue conceded that no notice under section 148 could be issued for AY 2015-16 after 31.03.2022, which marked the expiry of the six-year limitation period. The Apex Court's observations, particularly regarding the interplay of Section 149 of the Income-tax Act and TOLA, indicated that notices issued after 31.03.2022 for AY 2015-16 would be beyond the prescribed time limits. Consequently, since the reassessment proceedings were quashed on this primary legal ground, all other grounds raised by the assessee were rendered academic and were not adjudicated upon. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment as time-barred. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., the assessment for AY 2010-11 was quashed as it fell outside the 10-year block period.
The Tribunal admitted an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment as time-barred. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., the assessment for AY 2010-11 was quashed as it fell outside the 10-year block period.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act before the Assessing Officer, which was pending. The Ld. TPO had indeed passed a rectified order on 10-11-2025, reducing the transfer pricing adjustment to Nil, in compliance with the DRP's directions. This rectified order was not considered by the Assessing Officer when framing the final assessment. Since the rectification application was still pending before the AO, the Tribunal found that the present appeal had become infructuous. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with liberty to the assessee to move a restoration application if the rectified order was not considered by the AO after its disposal, and if the final assessment order remained uncorrected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding sufficient cause. The order of the NFAC was set aside, and the matter was restored to the NFAC for decision on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and the unfortunate circumstances. Considering the assessee's request for an opportunity to defend her case, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and the unfortunate circumstances. Considering the assessee's request for an opportunity to defend her case, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and the unfortunate circumstances. Considering the assessee's request for an opportunity to defend her case, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the beneficiaries of the trust, being family members of deceased employees, constitute a section of the public. It also noted that Section 115TD addresses the issue of net assets upon dissolution, making the absence of a specific clause not fatal to registration.
The Tribunal found that the appeal before it had become infructuous because the assessee had filed a fresh appeal against the subsequent assessment order. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the current appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 4 lakhs commission income addition was wrongly made to the assessee as Prateek Bansal had already owned up to this profit. Regarding the 2 kgs of gold seized, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify its ownership with the ED, as it could belong to the assessee as commission or to a company.
The Tribunal held that the Rs. 4 lakhs commission income addition was wrongly made to the assessee as Prateek Bansal had already owned up to this profit. Regarding the 2 kgs of gold seized, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify its ownership with the ED, as it could belong to the assessee as commission or to a company.