Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 7 of 17
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned. The Tribunal agreed that the non-disclosure of capital in earlier ITRs was a procedural lapse, not substantive evidence of unexplained income, especially when the assessee provided evidence of accumulated capital from disclosed sources.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be granted an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were breached by the CIT(E) rejecting the application ex-parte. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh determination on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not properly consider the application. To prevent a miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee a further opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that as per the Supreme Court decision in Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell, no addition can be made in a search case without incriminating material. Since the AO made the addition without referring to any such material, the CIT(A)'s deletion was justified.
The Tribunal held that the AO travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny by denying the Section 54F exemption. It also found that the AO erred by not considering the revised return, which, according to a High Court decision, obliterates the original return.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without a proper re-examination of the facts and the provisions of Section 80G. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the order was passed without adequate opportunity of being heard. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including share transfer deeds and ROC filings, to prove the genuineness of the share sale. The issues raised by the AO regarding the MOU and valuation were addressed by the documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration under section 80G. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the facts and the provisions of section 80G and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the impugned order was passed without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including share transfer deeds and ROC filings, to prove the genuineness of the share sale. The issues raised by the AO regarding the MOU and valuation were addressed by the documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that adding the profit again after it was already declared in the return of income amounts to double addition. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue of transfer pricing adjustment to the AO/TPO for fresh determination, following its own orders for previous years. The issue of depreciation on non-compete fees was also restored to the AO to follow Supreme Court and ITAT directions.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for exemption on capital gains, finding no cogent material to sustain the addition. For loan additions, it allowed claims from family members who declared amounts under VSV Scheme and deleted additions from some lenders, but remanded one loan issue for verification.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(Exemptions) was ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, which confirmed the application of Section 145(3) but reduced the estimated gross profit rate. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeal and failure to controvert the allegations.
The Tribunal held that while purchases from three suppliers were indeed bogus, the entire amount should not be added as income. Instead, only the profit element on these bogus purchases should be taxed, applying a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 10%. The Tribunal also ruled that Section 115BBE was not applicable for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on its merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that while purchases from three suppliers were indeed bogus, the entire amount should not be added as income. Instead, only the profit element on these bogus purchases should be taxed, applying a Gross Profit (GP) rate of 10%. The Tribunal also ruled that Section 115BBE was not applicable for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal held that the deletion of additions on account of interest income on corpus fund and the disallowance under Section 14A by the CIT(A) was correct, following its own previous decisions. However, the disallowance for delayed employee contribution was upheld by the CIT(A) and not challenged by the Revenue in this appeal.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's justification for non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the order was passed without adequate opportunity of being heard. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without disposing of the assessee's stay application and that the penalty notice was blank. Relying on High Court precedents and CBDT instructions, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that since the satisfaction note was recorded after 01.04.2021, the amended provisions of Section 153C, which render the section inapplicable to searches initiated on or after that date, would apply. Therefore, the notice and assessment order under Section 153C were unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the peculiar facts including a survey and denial of registration, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the rejection order lacked clarity on specific queries raised and the evidence required. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to be heard and submit specific details.
The Tribunal found that the rejection order lacked clarity on specific queries raised and the evidence required. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to be heard and submit specific details.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's justification for non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with all future notices.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied without disposing of the assessee's stay application and that the penalty notice was blank. Relying on High Court precedents and CBDT instructions, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s conclusion regarding the delay was not entirely correct as part of it was affected by the Covid epidemic. The Tribunal also noted that the addition made by CPC was unsustainable as the required certificate under section 10(23AAA) was now available.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was rendered inoperative by the High Court, the penalty proceedings emanating from it were also unsustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits and law.
The Tribunal held that since the satisfaction note was recorded after 01.04.2021, the amended provisions of Section 153C, which render the section inapplicable to searches initiated on or after that date, would apply. Therefore, the notice and assessment order under Section 153C were unsustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the assessee's claim for exemption on leave encashment as per the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000 notified by the Ministry of Finance.
The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note was not recorded in accordance with law, as it was consolidated for multiple assessment years and based on regular books of account without specifying incriminating material. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment was obtained from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Delhi, which was the prescribed authority for the relevant assessment year (2017-18) as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Aggarwal. Since the requisite approval was in place, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the department cannot proceed with appeals without establishing a claim in the insolvency proceedings. Since no claim was shown to have been made by the department, keeping the appeals pending was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer was valid, as the AO had bonafide material for forming a prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Ground No. 1 was decided against the assessee. Regarding Ground No. 2, concerning the addition of Rs. 5,50,000 as unexplained cash credits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed confirmation letters from all three lenders (Ess Kay Electrical, Sandeep Kumar, and Light & Power System Bhanu Prasad). The Tribunal found that Ess Kay Electrical and Sandeep Kumar lent amounts through banking channels and had sufficient funds. The assessee had thus proved the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders, and the nature and source of the credit were satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus, and therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was liable to be deleted. The addition of Rs. 5,50,000 was deleted, and the ground raised by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal did not decide the grounds related to interest under sections 234A and 234B, principles of natural justice, or the order being bad in law, as the primary ground concerning the addition was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the department cannot proceed with appeals without establishing a claim in the insolvency proceedings. Since no claim was shown to have been made by the department, keeping the appeals pending was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Section 14A and Section 2(22)(e), finding no error in the lower appellate authority's reasoning and reliance on judicial precedents. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since the satisfaction note was recorded after 01.04.2021, the amended provisions of Section 153C, which render the section inapplicable to searches initiated on or after that date, would apply. Therefore, the notice and assessment order under Section 153C were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, especially considering the transition to the faceless regime and the breach of natural justice by the CIT(A). The delay was condoned, and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently established that the outstanding balances were either brought forward or arose from business purchases and were subsequently discharged through identifiable payment modes. The AO's assumption that cash transactions were not genuine was not justified given the nature of the business.
The Tribunal held that on the date of the Section 143(1) intimation, the issue was debatable and the Supreme Court's decision was not yet pronounced. Therefore, invoking the Supreme Court's decision at that stage was beyond jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits were explained as arising from recorded cash sales and were part of the assessee's books of account, Section 69A could not be invoked. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application mechanically and without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the assessee should be given another chance to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard by the CIT(E) before a decision on merit is taken. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the registration based on the absence of an irrevocability clause, contrary to a Bombay High Court ruling. The tribunal directed the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and decide the issue on merit.