Loading ITAT cases…
1,426 orders · Page 18 of 29
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, initiated by notices issued on or after 01.04.2021, cannot legally survive. This is based on a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition forming the basis of the penalty was deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2021 substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Act, effective from 01.04.2021. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 on or after 01.04.2021 should be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b) of the substituted regime. However, the requirement of sanction under Section 151 of the substituted regime is crucial. Clause (ii) of Section 151 mandates approval from the PCCIT or CCIT when more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. In this case, the initial notice under Section 148 was issued with the approval of the PCIT, not the PCCIT or CCIT. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's decision in H and M Hennes and Mauritz Retail Private Limited v. ACIT, which quashed reassessment proceedings on materially identical facts. The Tribunal clarified that Section 292BC, inserted retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2026, addresses defects in the form or authentication of an approval but cannot supply the sanction of the competent authority where it was entirely absent. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in annulling the assessment order. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2021 substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Act, effective from 01.04.2021. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal directed that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 on or after 01.04.2021 should be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b) of the substituted regime. However, the requirement of sanction under Section 151 of the substituted regime is crucial. Clause (ii) of Section 151 mandates approval from the PCCIT or CCIT when more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. In this case, the initial notice under Section 148 was issued with the approval of the PCIT, not the PCCIT or CCIT. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's decision in H and M Hennes and Mauritz Retail Private Limited v. ACIT, which quashed reassessment proceedings on materially identical facts. The Tribunal clarified that Section 292BC, inserted retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2026, addresses defects in the form or authentication of an approval but cannot supply the sanction of the competent authority where it was entirely absent. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in annulling the assessment order. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed withdrawn Rs. 9,00,000/- from his capital account within a week prior to the cash being seized. Therefore, the addition made by the authorities below was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that since the addition was already confirmed substantively in the hands of Shri Avtar Singh Kochar, it could not be confirmed again on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the penalty was unsustainable in law as the AO had not recorded the required satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating proceedings under Section 271DA.
The Tribunal noted that a previous appeal by the assessee had already quashed the reopening of assessment. Consequently, the PCIT's revision proceedings under Section 263 were rendered invalid. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's ground in its entirety.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to file within the prescribed time. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to file within the prescribed time. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books of accounts were duly audited and found no adverse findings in the audit report. However, since the assessee could not fully explain the unaccounted sales and the department could not entirely disregard the evidence, the disallowance was restricted.
The Tribunal held that the CPC and CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts on record and the assessee's consistent method of accounting. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had accepted a similar methodology in preceding years, making the departure unsustainable.
The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. However, satisfied with the assessee's justification for past non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the defective appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on conjecture and not cogent documents. Since the Revenue failed to demonstrate the existence of cash transactions to invoke Section 269SS, no penalty was warranted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted documents to the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) had omitted to consider them. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was unsustainable because the penalty notices did not specify which limb of Section 270A(9) was violated. Furthermore, the issue of whether the loss was capital or revenue expenditure was debatable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the AO's order was ex-parte and confirmed by the CIT(A), the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, ensuring natural justice and an adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It upheld the order for non-deduction of TDS and interest, finding it within the extended limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the late fee penalty under Section 234E was deleted as it was levied prior to the section's insertion.
The Tribunal held that the FIR alone is not sufficient evidence of payment, especially when both the complainant and the accused retracted the FIR through affidavits. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries with the alleged seller.
The Tribunal held that the AO conducted verification at a wrong address and disregarded the assessee's evidence. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately demonstrated the expenditure was for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the inclusion of Odyssey Technologies Ltd., Domex E-Data Pvt. Ltd., Sasken Technologies Ltd., and Cybage Software Private Limited in the list of comparables was incorrect as they were functionally dissimilar or lacked segmental data. Therefore, grounds of appeal challenging their inclusion and exclusion were allowed. The Tribunal also found that the working capital computation by the AO/TPO was erroneous and set it aside, directing the TPO to re-compute it as per law, accepting Ground of Appeal No. 3.8. Regarding the interest on outstanding receivables, the Tribunal held that the ALP determination for consequential receivables is subsumed within the ALP determination of the principal international transaction. Relying on judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., it was held that no separate ALP determination is required for overdue receivables once the principal transactions are tested at ALP. Therefore, the addition for interest on outstanding receivables was deleted, and Ground of Appeal No. 4 was accepted. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Since the grievance was resolved by the grant of registration, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was invalid because the approval was not obtained from the specified higher authority as mandated by section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act for cases beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal considered the arguments and decided that an addition of 5% on the total disputed amount would serve the interests of both the assessee and the revenue. This confirmed addition is to be made to the taxable income.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly deleted the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to explain the cash deposits as genuine sales proceeds, and the AO had not pointed out any defects in the books of account or VAT returns.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without considering the assessee's detailed reply and accounting guidelines. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without considering the assessee's detailed reply and accounting guidelines. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under section 143(1) and the CIT(A)'s order were illegal. This was because the Supreme Court decision relied upon was delivered after the assessment order was passed, making the issue debatable at the time of assessment.
The ITAT found the appeal filed by the Revenue to be defective. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not examining the evidence and restoring the issues to the AO without proper adjudication. The CIT(A) should have examined the facts and evidence to return findings on the assessee's claims.
The tribunal allowed the ground related to EPF disallowance, directing the AO to verify the payment dates in light of the Supreme Court's decision. For the Section 43B issue, the tribunal found the disallowance unsustainable as the expenditure was not claimed in the profit and loss account.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted evidence of charitable activities and expenses for the preceding years. The CIT(E)'s rejection was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted evidence of charitable activities and expenses for the preceding years. The CIT(E)'s rejection was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the intimation under section 143(1) merges with the assessment order under section 143(3). Since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a proper hearing, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are in the nature of contractual payments for services and not for the use of premises. Therefore, TDS should be deducted at 2% under Section 194C, not 10% under Section 194I.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are in the nature of contractual payments for services and not for the use of premises. Therefore, TDS should be deducted at 2% under Section 194C, not 10% under Section 194I.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 was bad in law because the approval for issuing the notice was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) and not from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCCIT) or other specified authorities under Section 151(ii) of the Act, as required for reopening beyond three years.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in retrospectively cancelling the registration based on provisions that were not applicable during the relevant assessment years. It also found that the PCIT's action was based on survey findings without independent inquiry and lacked proper procedural adherence.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical, lacking independent application of mind. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling.
The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt the fair market value determined by the DVO and make an addition only for the differential sum, considering the assessee's share. This means the addition under section 56(2)(x) will be based on the DVO's valuation.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed the appeal due to the unexplained and inordinate delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
The tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal held that an illegality in the assumption of jurisdiction makes an order void ab initio and can be agitated at any stage. The assumption of jurisdiction based on the impugned notice was vitiated, and thus the consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling.
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 held that for imposing penalty under Section 270A, there must be a clear case of misreporting or underreporting of income detected by the revenue. Since the assessee suo motu revised the capital gains loss based on a valuer's report and the revenue did not detect any misrepresentation, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that based on the Revenue's concession before the Supreme Court in the Rajiv Bansal case, notices issued for AY 2015-16 on or after April 1, 2021, should be dropped. Therefore, the notice issued on July 23, 2022, was bad in law.