Loading ITAT cases…
976 orders · Page 7 of 20
The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps leading to the ex-parte assessment. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, rendering it a jurisdictional defect. This defect is not curable and makes the reassessment order void ab initio.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided evidence, including a forensic report, proving the bank account was not opened by him. Therefore, the cash deposit could not be taxed in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's book entries for the impugned purchases. It directed a lumpsum disallowance of 1% on the alleged bogus purchases, stating this would not be treated as a precedent.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the threshold prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The Departmental Representative conceded that the circular applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal found the CIT(E)'s rejection of the application unjustified. It reasoned that the trust is mainly engaged in charitable activities and that the CIT(E) did not properly calculate expenditures on religious activities, suggesting a limit of up to 5% for such activities.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the assessee's case from CIT(E), Delhi to CIT(E), Chandigarh was illegal as no objection of the assessee was obtained as required by Section 127. Consequently, the order rejecting the registration was set aside.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10B is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 11 exemption solely on this ground is not justified.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval under section 151 by the prescribed authority was a mechanical one, lacking independent application of mind. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the remaining additions of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 87,500/- were not sustainable. The Tribunal considered the assessee's socio-economic status and past savings, concluding that some cash in hand could not be denied.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash turnover in such businesses and the divergent views on bogus purchases. It decided to disallow a lump sum of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases as a disallowance of gross profit.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent assessment order passed under Section 153C are vitiated in law and require to be quashed. The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) was vague, generic, and failed to establish a nexus between the material found during the search of Shri Pranjil Batra and the assessee. Specifically, the satisfaction note did not identify the specific documents, the assessment years to which they pertained, or demonstrate how they related to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction note was recorded without proper application of mind and relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal in cases such as Renu Singh (ITA No. 2806/Del/2024) and Harish Kumar Agarwal (ITA No. 5652/Del/2024), which had quashed similar assessments based on non-descript and cryptic satisfaction notes. The Tribunal concluded that a mechanical reproduction of allegations without independent application of mind cannot confer valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside. Grounds of appeal nos. 2 and 4 were allowed, and other grounds were deemed consequential.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of whether the nephew refunded the advances or adjusted them against goods supplied. If confirmed, no addition should be made. The Tribunal also deleted the addition on account of cash deposits, finding it to be a double addition as cash sales were already accepted.
The Tribunal held that the pendency of an SLP against a jurisdictional High Court's judgment has no consequence. Therefore, the Revenue's grounds of appeal were devoid of merit.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.
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 noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the threshold prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The Departmental Representative conceded that the circular applied retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence, including sale bills and proof of delivery. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made the addition based on conjecture and surmises, ignoring the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case with all documentary evidence. The CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the application on its merits, considering the genuineness of activities and the trust's objects.
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case with all documentary evidence. The CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the application on its merits, considering the genuineness of activities and the trust's objects.
The Tribunal found the ex-parte orders were based on non-compliance. Satisfied with the assessee's justification for past non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be arbitrary as no opportunity was given to the AO to deal with the additional documents. The order of the CIT(A) was quashed and the issue was set aside for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and ledger accounts, to explain the source of funds and the business purpose of the transactions. Therefore, the returned advances could not be treated as income from undisclosed sources.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to first decide the appellant's status as a legal representative of the deceased assessee.
The Tribunal found the ex-parte orders were based on non-compliance. Satisfied with the assessee's justification for past non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice under Section 148 was issued after the period permitted by the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the notice and the consequent assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's turnover in FY 2017-18 did not exceed Rs. 400 crores, the income is liable to be charged at 25% instead of 30%. The Assessing Officer was directed to determine the tax rate accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the impugned investments. The evidence provided, including bank statements and receipts, remained unrebutted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the donation was not genuine as the recipient political party was found to be a paper entity facilitating bogus claims. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80GGC was rightly disallowed.
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 the tax effect in the appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as they were based on incorrect facts and a change of opinion. The AO failed to apply his mind independently to the information and ignored material facts already on record and considered in the original assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure justice, acknowledging potential communication issues with the virtual hearing mechanism.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposit was justified as it originated from the sale proceeds of standing popular trees and mangoes. The addition made by the lower authorities was deleted based on substantial evidence furnished.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued to a deceased person is void ab initio and all consequent proceedings, including the reassessment order, are null and void. The court relied on High Court judgments stating that a notice under Section 148 must be issued to a correct person, not a dead one.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to borrowed satisfaction and lack of independent application of mind by the AO. Furthermore, the addition of Rs. 40,00,000 was deleted as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of the loan's genuineness, including repayment through banking channels, and the AO failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was not sustainable in law because the income escaping assessment was less than Rs. 50 lacs, which is a pre-condition for reopening beyond three years under Section 149(1)(b).
The Tribunal held that the pendency of an SLP against a jurisdictional High Court's judgment has no consequence. Therefore, the Revenue's grounds of appeal were devoid of merit.
The Tribunal held that the date of handing over the seized material to the assessee's AO (March 10, 2023) should be considered the date of initiation of search for the purpose of Section 153C. Since this date is after April 1, 2021, Section 153C is not applicable as per the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard and that complete details were not filed. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the exact offense committed by the assessee. Following the decisions of the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, the Tribunal found that such a notice is fatal to penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the transfer of the assessee's case from CIT(E), Delhi to CIT(E), Chandigarh was illegal as no objection of the assessee was obtained as required by Section 127. Consequently, the order rejecting the registration was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer. This was done to allow the assessee a fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities of hearing, acknowledging potential communication gaps in virtual hearing mechanisms.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation, following Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction. It noted that a coordinate bench had previously ruled on similar facts that donations to this political party were bogus and intended to defraud taxpayers.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for the entire cash deposit was not fully discharged, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh would be just and proper. The assessment under section 115BBE was directed to be done under normal provisions as the relevant transactions occurred before its effective date.