Loading ITAT cases…
976 orders · Page 11 of 20
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lacs and the period of limitation under Section 149(1)(a) had expired. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide proof of service of statutory notices on the assessee's registered e-mail. The additional evidence submitted by the assessee was relevant and required verification, which the CIT(A) failed to obtain via a remand report.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be granted an opportunity of being heard and to submit evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with the investor. The AO's doubt based on the investor's low income was not sufficient to sustain the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 180 days in filing the appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), finding the explanation provided by the assessee to be genuine. The Tribunal held that to prevent a miscarriage of justice, the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to represent its case. Consequently, both appeals were remitted back to the file of the Learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to finalize the issues afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the evidence on record, or any other evidence the assessee might choose to file. This included the appeal challenging the penalty order under Section 271AAC(1), which was also remitted for fresh consideration. The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal restored the issues back to the file of the AO for a fresh assessment order. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO and provide all relevant details. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. As a result, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustments sustained were due to technical and interpretational differences, not concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not fully discharged its onus, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs would be just and proper, granting the assessee a benefit of Rs. 18,61,580/-. It also directed that Section 115BBE would only apply to transactions after April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's contention of no unverified transactions was not entirely disbelievable, some transactions remained unexplained. The commission rate of 0.60% on unverified transactions was considered excessive given the business model.
The Tribunal found that while some portion of the cash deposits might be unexplained, the revenue's disbelieving the assessee's explanation of cash sales was not fully justified. The Tribunal reduced the addition to a lump sum of Rs. 5 lakh, to be treated as a lump-sum addition and not a precedent.
The tribunal found that the grounds raised before it were not properly presented before the CIT(A) and that the assessee had not challenged the adjustments made to the total income. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the section 153C proceedings were invalid due to the absence of a valid satisfaction note. The satisfaction note lacked discussion on whether the seized material belonged to or pertained to the assessees.
The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under section 153C were not sustainable due to the absence of a valid satisfaction note. The satisfaction note lacked discussion on whether the seized material belonged to or pertained to the assessees.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to participate and provide all relevant details.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and verification of TDS credit. The Revenue conceded that reconciliation was required at the Assessing Officer's level.
The Tribunal followed a previous order in the assessee's own case where appeals were dismissed due to a moratorium, rendering the current appeals academic. Liberty was granted to file a fresh appeal upon the conclusion of NCLAT proceedings.
The Tribunal followed a previous order in the assessee's own case where appeals were dismissed due to a moratorium, rendering the current appeals academic. Liberty was granted to file a fresh appeal upon the conclusion of NCLAT proceedings.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not fully explained the source of the cash deposits. However, considering the prior year's assessment and in the interest of justice, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was deemed appropriate, providing relief of Rs. 31,17,500/- to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's ad hoc disallowance of expenses without rejecting the assessee's books of account or making a best judgment assessment was not justified. The deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was found to be just and proper.
The Tribunal found that the dispute regarding TDS credit claimed by the assessee was not examined by the AO. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for examination and reconciliation of the TDS credit claim.
The Tribunal found it necessary to verify the assessee's claim regarding TDS deduction. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to submit relevant details.
The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were not invalid due to the faceless assessment scheme, as the NaFAC had valid jurisdiction. However, due to the assessee's mental illness, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's order was passed ex-parte under Section 147/144. The Tribunal observed that most of the additions were made due to a lack of verification of all documents at the AO's level. Considering the element of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present all details and documents as required by law. The assessee is also directed to file all necessary details and documents with the revenue to facilitate an early passing of an order. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific findings were made on the merits of the additions or grounds of appeal by the Tribunal itself; the decision was procedural.
The Tribunal followed a previous order in the assessee's own case where appeals were dismissed due to a moratorium, rendering the current appeals academic. Liberty was granted to file a fresh appeal upon the conclusion of NCLAT proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons for delay to be sufficient and reasonable. It directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh, granting three effective opportunities to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material seized during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material seized during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions were deleted.
The Tribunal held that natural justice requires an adequate opportunity of being heard before passing an order against an applicant. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons for delay to be sufficient and reasonable. It directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh, granting three effective opportunities to the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the explanation was found to be genuine. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal found that the cash payment was supported by documents and bank statements, establishing its bonafide.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's written submissions and additional evidence. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and acknowledged that both the assessment order and the appellate order were ex-parte. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the reasoning that income would not have been declared but for the notice under Section 148 is not justified. Since the TDS covered the tax liability and no additions were made, the Revenue failed to establish concealment of income.
The Tribunal noted that while strategic investments involve significant expenditure, the AO was dissatisfied with the assessee's claim of no expenditure. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-computation of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, considering mixed expenses and apportionment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely based on the quantum appeal's outcome and by not considering the assessee's submissions. The penalty under Section 271AAC(1) was not sustainable as the quantum addition was confirmed on an ad-hoc basis.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law because the assessee was an individual and the property was purchased by a partnership firm in which she was a partner. Therefore, the impugned reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the facts were similar to a previous case where the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to follow the precedent and remit the issue back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the reassessment order was invalid and void ab initio because the reasons for reopening were not furnished to the assessee and the notice under Section 143(2) was not served. The Tribunal noted that service of notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for a valid assessment.
The Tribunal held that the interest paid for acquiring additional space, as eventually handed over by the builder, is a legitimate expense and should be included in the cost of acquisition, following a coordinate bench's decision. Regarding the Section 54 benefit, the Tribunal found that the AO did not properly implement the DRP's directions and remanded the issue back to the AO.
The tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, making it not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that mere repayment of loans through banking channels does not legitimize transactions if the original loans were found to be accommodation entries. The relief granted by the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence, thus violating the principle of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The tribunal held that the NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the case was restored to the NFAC for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's approach of computing the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for distribution operations based on the Berry Ratio as a Profit Level Indicator (PLI) was correct. It also found that the rejection of the Berry Ratio by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) was flawed.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's order was a non-speaking order and was passed without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the case was restored to the NFAC for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's rejection of books of accounts was not legally tenable as no specific defects were pointed out. The CIT(A) rightly observed that mere non-verification from third parties cannot be grounds to reject audited books.