Loading ITAT cases…
1,426 orders · Page 27 of 29
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's bonafide reasons and the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were duly explained as reimbursement for medical expenses paid by the assessee's husband. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were largely based on conjecture. However, to do justice, 5% of the total additions were sustained.
The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. The common approval provided by the prescribed authority for multiple assessment years was found to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even if it pertains to a single assessee. A common approval for multiple assessment years was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in directly assessing the assessee instead of the concerned company. The addition was deleted as the lower authorities proceeded against the wrong entity.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even if it pertains to a single assessee. A common approval for multiple assessment years was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the AO's selective approach in disregarding losses from only three out of thirteen companies acquired under a single commercial arrangement was arbitrary. The Tribunal found that the transactions were supported by documentary evidence, routed through banking channels, and traded on recognized stock exchanges, thus genuine commercial losses.
The Tribunal, considering the divergent judicial views on bogus purchases and the peculiar facts, decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases. This disallowance is not to be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, accepting the assessee's claim regarding the employer's contribution to ESI/PF. It also deleted the disallowances made under Section 40(a)(ia) and the ad hoc award disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16, dated 06.04.2022, was barred by limitation. This was based on the concession made by the Revenue that the Taxation and Other Laws [Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions] Act, 2020 (TOLA) does not apply to AY 2015-16 for notices issued on or after April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. The common approval provided by the prescribed authority for multiple assessment years was found to be invalid.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to restore the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even if it pertains to a single assessee. A common approval for multiple assessment years was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even if it pertains to a single assessee. A common approval for multiple assessment years was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 23 lakhs as unexplained investment could not be sustained as the payments were made via cheque from the assessee's bank account. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 4.47 lakhs as unexplained cash deposit was also deleted as it was linked to the primary addition.
The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even if it pertains to a single assessee. A common approval for multiple assessment years was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO had not provided specific deficiencies in the assessee's evidence, conducted independent verification of third parties, or provided a clear bifurcation of the alleged accommodation entries. The basis for the addition was considered vague.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide cogent evidence to show that salary payments violated Section 40A(3). The assessee's explanation that payments were made in installments below Rs. 10,000 per day and that EPF was not applicable due to salaries exceeding Rs. 15,000 per month was not rebutted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method adopted by the assessee for valuation and in adding the entire share premium. The Tribunal found that the issue price was below the fair market value determined by the DCF method, making Section 56(2)(viib) inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the AO failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before passing the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the AO had utilized information from the return filed under Section 148 and therefore, the issuance of a Section 143(2) notice was incumbent.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected additional evidence without proper consideration, which was vital for adjudication. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to present its case and file necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of expenditure during assessment proceedings does not constitute suppression of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 270A and its confirmation by the CIT(A) were not justified.
The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. The common approval provided by the prescribed authority for multiple assessment years was found to be invalid.
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings. It held that the additions made in the assessment order were not related to the reason for which the reopening was initiated.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the applications despite the assessee providing relevant records. To prevent injustice, the Tribunal granted the assessee a further opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of bogus purchases. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 270A was also set aside as it was consequential to the addition.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of bogus purchases. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 270A was also set aside as it was consequential to the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions. The creditworthiness, identity, and genuineness of unsecured loans from directors were proved. Bad debts written off were supported by evidence, and the estimated net profit by the AO was not rational compared to the assessee's disclosed profits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of bogus purchases. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 270A was also set aside as it was consequential to the addition.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the assessee's claim that the sale consideration of a building was reduced from the block of assets as per Section 50 of the Act. If found correct, no addition would be required, and the existing addition would be deleted. This issue was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding inaccuracies in the computation of income and tax, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the facts and rectify the mistakes apparent from the record, granting the assessee's claims in accordance with the law. This included issues concerning the incorrect tax rate applied, MAT credit, TCS credit, and an unreversed demand. These grounds were also allowed for statistical purposes. Grounds related to interest under sections 234B and 234C were considered consequential and not adjudicated. Penalty proceedings under section 270A were dismissed as premature. General grounds were also dismissed. The appeal was allowed as indicated.
The Tribunal held that the matter deserved to be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions. The creditworthiness, identity, and genuineness of unsecured loans from directors were proved. Bad debts written off were supported by evidence, and the estimated net profit by the AO was not rational compared to the assessee's disclosed profits.
The Tribunal held that the sanction order for reopening the assessment was invalid as it was not signed by the competent authority. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were vitiated and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence based on the assessee's plausible reasons for not filing them earlier. The issues were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering these documents.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order rejecting the application for registration was illegal, arbitrary, and non-speaking. It further noted that cancellation under Section 12AA(3) requires findings of non-genuine activities or activities not in accordance with the trust's objects, which were absent.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence based on the assessee's plausible reasons for not filing them earlier. The issues were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication considering these documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C against Esteem Steel (P) Ltd. were void ab initio due to the non-recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer. For K.N. Shukla, the Tribunal found that he had indeed surrendered the amount, and his subsequent retraction was without basis, thus upholding the addition in his hands.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard and consider all evidence on record.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider all evidence on record.
The Tribunal held that the reopening beyond four years was vitiated as the AO failed to demonstrate a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The approval under Section 151 was also found to be mechanical and invalid.
The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value and part of enhanced compensation, exempt under Section 10(37) for individuals/HUFs. The decision in Mahender Pal Narang was distinguished, and the Supreme Court's view in Ghanshyam HUF was affirmed.
The Tribunal held that the AO could not have summarily rejected the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits, which were linked to business sales. However, the assessee had not fully proved the source of increased cash sales.
The Tribunal held that the transactions occurred during AY 2017-18, not AY 2018-19. Therefore, the addition made by the AO for AY 2018-19 was arbitrary and erroneous.
The Tribunal admitted the sale deed as additional evidence. To ensure justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, including a potential remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should not be denied due to technicalities and that provisions for condoning delay should be interpreted liberally. The delay of 842 days was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) breached the principles of natural justice by not issuing further notices to the assessee before rejecting the applications. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the advance tax deposit was made for AY 2024-25 and should be credited to that year. The AO was directed to allow the credit for AY 2024-25 and adjust any refund against the demand for AY 2025-26.