Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 2 of 17
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid as it was based on tangible material. However, it found that since the purchases and sales were accommodation entries, only a lumpsum commission should be assessed, not the difference. The commission addition was also deleted as it was subsumed by the revised profit estimation.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's plea that Section 50C might not be applicable to leasehold rights and that the AO should have called for a DVO report. The issue was complex and required examination of facts and evidence.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the condonation petition and, if admitted, adjudicate the grounds afresh.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to be heard, considering the possibility of online notices being missed. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that jurisdictional issues, such as the assumption of jurisdiction or limitation, cannot be restored to the AO under the proviso to Section 251(1)(a). These legal grounds must be decided by the appellate authority itself.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not issued in accordance with law. Specifically, the approval for issuing the notice was granted by an authority not competent to do so under Section 151(ii) for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing notices under Section 148A and 148 was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the specified authority (Pr. Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General), as required for reopening after three years. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the penalty proceedings to the file of the NFAC for denovo adjudication. The NFAC was directed to provide a clear finding on concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars before levying any penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merit and directed the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. It deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the lower authority and therefore set aside the impugned orders.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which included ledger accounts of parties with irrecoverable balances. These evidences were restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard and file necessary details before the appellate authority. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the CIT(E). Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) denied the additional evidence and did not adjudicate the issue on merits. To provide the assessee an opportunity to present documentary evidence, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal found no evidence that the appellant qualifies as a legal representative under the Act or has been proceeded against by the department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed at this stage.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under section 148 on or after 01.04.2021 for reopening assessment for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation. Consequently, reassessments based on such notices are bad in law and void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to the overseas agent were commission for procuring orders and follow-up, not FTS, as services were rendered outside India. Therefore, the assessee had no obligation to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were passed ex parte and that the CIT(E) failed to consider relevant facts. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal followed its previous order in an identical appeal for a different assessment year involving the same assessee. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding no distinction in facts or law.
The Tribunal agreed that the assessee's non-compliance was due to compelling reasons and not intentional. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the payments made to the overseas agent were commission for procuring orders and follow-up, not FTS, as services were rendered outside India. Therefore, the assessee had no obligation to deduct tax at source.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the assessee's ownership of unexplained money or the actual incurrence of commission expenses. The Tribunal found that the transactions were recorded in the books and made through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to establish his status as a legal representative as defined by law. Therefore, the appeal was rejected at this stage.
The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to re-adjudicate the matter de novo after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases, stating it would not be treated as a precedent. The assessee's book entries were rejected to this extent.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that there was a denial of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a similar appeal had already been heard by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the current appeal was considered a duplicate.
The Tribunal found that a lump sum addition of Rs. 1.90 lakhs would meet the ends of justice, providing relief of Rs. 13 lakhs to the assessee. Regarding Section 115BBE, it was held that the provision applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017, and the assessee should be assessed under normal provisions.
The Tribunal acknowledged divergent judicial opinions on bogus purchases and decided that a lumpsum addition of Rs.25 lakhs out of the total bogus purchases would be just and proper, without setting a precedent.
The Tribunal found that the rejection of the 80G approval was consequential to the rejection of the 12AB registration. However, since the fate of the 12AB application in further appellate proceedings was unclear, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the sale consideration was within the 10% tolerance limit. It directed verification of the Noida Authority's proposals regarding base valuation and rate lists to determine if the addition should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the prescribed authority's approval was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling on similar grounds.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash turnover in the assessee's business but found that the assessee had not fully discharged its onus of proof. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal held that receipts from professional services, which were substantial and customer-specific, were taxable as FTS. However, receipts from software subscriptions were not considered FTS or royalty. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable in law as the addition made was not in line with the sole reason for reopening. Therefore, the reopening itself was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a mere routine distributor and had not added any value to the imported goods. Therefore, the Resale Price Method (RPM) was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction, as confirmed by various High Court decisions.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to pass orders on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to examine the documents furnished by the assessee and noted factual discrepancies. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment after considering the documents.
The Tribunal allowed the exemption under Section 54 for the residential flat sale, finding sufficient evidence of CGAS deposit. For the agricultural land, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh verification regarding its location relative to municipal limits. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow indexation benefit for calculating capital gains on the residential property sale.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for de novo consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to pass orders on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.