Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 8 of 17
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. It held that the ex parte orders passed by the AO violated the principles of natural justice and set aside these orders.
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 while the assessee proved the identity and creditworthiness of parties through VAT registration and bank details, the genuineness of purchases also requires explaining the source of payment. The AO's adoption of a GP ratio from a different assessment year was deemed inappropriate.
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 the assessee had discharged the onus by providing documentary evidence like confirmations, PAN, TDS details, bank statements, and ledger accounts. The repayment of loans along with interest indicated the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee proved the identity and creditworthiness of parties through VAT registration and bank details, the genuineness of purchases also requires explaining the source of payment. The AO's adoption of a GP ratio from a different assessment year was deemed inappropriate.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee proved the identity and creditworthiness of parties through VAT registration and bank details, the genuineness of purchases also requires explaining the source of payment. The AO's adoption of a GP ratio from a different assessment year was deemed inappropriate.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to provide a hearing and decide the issue accordingly.
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.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application mechanically and without proper consideration of documents. Citing a contrary High Court ruling, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application mechanically and without proper consideration of documents. Citing a contrary High Court ruling, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merit.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an Assessing Officer who lacked the necessary jurisdiction as per CBDT instructions. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without affording the assessee a proper hearing. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without affording the assessee a proper hearing. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
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 since the reassessment order, which formed the basis of the penalty, was quashed by the ITAT, the penalty could not survive. Additionally, the show cause notice for penalty was found to be invalid for not specifying the exact limb of the offense.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its powers by setting aside the assessment order to the AO when the assessment was not under Section 144. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for verification of the additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that project-related expenses, including lease rent, incurred on an abandoned project are allowable as revenue expenditure. Routine administrative expenses necessary for the continued existence of the company are also allowable.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were barred by limitation as the ten-year period for counting was from the date of recording the satisfaction note or issuing the notice. The assessment years in question fell outside this ten-year block period.
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 the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were barred by limitation as the ten-year period for counting was from the date of recording the satisfaction note or issuing the notice. The assessment years in question fell outside this ten-year block period.
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 held that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without providing an opportunity of being heard, which is contrary to established High Court precedents. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without providing an opportunity of being heard, which is contrary to established High Court precedents. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merits.
The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order passed by the AO under section 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Act, directing a fresh assessment after considering the assessee's submissions and conducting necessary inquiries. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision.
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 held that while the assessee proved the identity and creditworthiness of parties through VAT registration and bank details, the genuineness of purchases also requires explaining the source of payment. The AO's adoption of a GP ratio from a different assessment year was deemed inappropriate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to provide an opportunity of being heard and decide the issues on merit.
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 fresh consideration.
The Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment. The Tribunal found that the AO had not applied his mind independently and had relied on incorrect facts and borrowed satisfaction for reopening the assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee, being an individual, should be given an opportunity to contest the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee, being an individual, should be given an opportunity to contest the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh decision on the penalty. The AO was directed to consider the quantum appeal outcome, existing material, and any new evidence, and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to file a fresh appeal before the Jaipur Bench. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the current appeal with the liberty for the assessee to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard on merit. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) to decide the issue after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(E). The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a decision on merit after affording a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the AO relied on an incomplete excel sheet with suppressed figures and lacked corroborating evidence of property acquisition. The assessee's affidavit, stating no transaction with Omaxe Group, was unrebutted and should not have been disregarded.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order was bad in law as it was passed without adhering to the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 154 by reviewing and reversing its own concluded appellate order, which is impermissible.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and not mandatory for claiming FTC, especially when supported by documentary evidence. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
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 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(E) should have provided an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the application. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits after affording a hearing.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in immovable property. The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documents, confirmations, and bank statements to prove the genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a hearing and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a hearing and decide the issue afresh.
The Tribunal held that the taxability of offshore supplies and engineering services should follow the consistent view of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years, where such income was not taxed in India. The Tribunal also noted that the Department had not appealed against these prior rulings.