Loading ITAT cases…
976 orders · Page 8 of 20
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee will be given three effective opportunities of hearing.
The Tribunal held that opening balances could not be the subject matter of addition under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits. Therefore, the additions made by the lower authorities were deleted.
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 found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and merely confirmed the penalty. In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
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 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 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 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 AO had not properly examined or rebutted the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the genuineness of the unsecured loans. The Tribunal also noted that the alleged entry provider had denied being an entry operator in a prior statement, which was also considered by a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, stating that it applies only when exempt income is actually received. The appeals of both the Revenue and the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.
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 held that the notice under section 148, issued on 03-04-2022, was time-barred and without jurisdiction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order and penalty were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10IC was a curable defect and the assessee had complied with the extended deadline. Therefore, the assessee should be allowed the benefit of Section 115BAA.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was granted mechanically and lacked due application of mind, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 and the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
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 donations were not genuine, as the bank accounts of the political parties were used by accommodation entry providers to launder money and return cash to the donors. Therefore, the deduction was rightly disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148, issued on 03-04-2022, was time-barred and without jurisdiction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order and penalty were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 05/2024. Consequently, the appeal was deemed withdrawn and dismissed. The assessee's cross objections were also dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. A de novo assessment order is to be passed, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission to offer profit attribution at 2.5% to avoid further litigation. This was considered a reasonable compromise by the Tribunal. Other grounds of appeal were deemed consequential.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued beyond the period of limitation, following Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while some cash deposit might be unexplained, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 2 lakh would be just and proper. It also directed that the addition should be taxed under normal provisions and not under Section 115BBE, and deleted the addition related to air conditioners.
The Tribunal held that the receipts from Indian educational institutions and corporate customers aggregating to Rs. 1,31,31,59,555/- do not fall within the ambit of Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12(4) of the India-US DTAA. The Tribunal noted that the factual matrix for the current assessment year is identical to the preceding assessment years for which the Tribunal had consistently ruled in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions in ITA No.2416/Del/2023, ITA No.3646/Del/2023, and ITA No.1958/Del/2025. The reasoning in those prior decisions, which was reiterated, was that the assessee acts as a mere facilitator providing access to online course content created by third-party universities and companies. The Tribunal found no evidence of technical services being rendered, emphasizing the absence of human intervention, which is a prerequisite for FTS as per Supreme Court rulings. The ratio is that providing access to online educational content, where the content is created by others and the platform acts as a facilitator without technical intervention, does not constitute FTS. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the matter required a fresh assessment in the interest of justice. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases/expenditure. This disallowance is not to be treated as a precedent, and the assessee's book entries are rejected to that extent.
The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing the appeal with the CIT(A), noting the AO's initial mistake in the computation sheet. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing the appeal with the CIT(A), noting the AO's initial mistake in the computation sheet. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not vitiated by the timing of the satisfaction recorded. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that since more than three years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year, the approval for issuing the Section 148 notice should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) as per Section 151(ii). The approval from Pr. CIT was not in compliance with the law.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on lease rent paid to GNOIDA, following previous decisions of the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. The additions made by the AO were rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merits and sustained the addition ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.
The Tribunal held that justice had eluded the assessee due to the ex-parte order and the failure of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded a due opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) sustained additions based on the Assessing Officer's order. To ensure justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and decide the issue on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit and granted the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit and granted the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as it was crucial for a proper decision. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration based on these new documents.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including the lender's NBFC registration, audited financials, and bank statements, to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan. The consequential additions for commission and interest were also deleted.
The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the matter required a denovo assessment. The issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the issue of TDS deduction on EDC payments was debatable, providing a reasonable cause for non-deduction. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271C were not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of TDS deduction on EDC payments was debatable, providing a reasonable cause for non-deduction. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271C were not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the issue of TDS deduction on EDC payments was debatable, providing a reasonable cause for non-deduction. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271C were not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was not sustainable. The interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C for AY 2010-11, issued on 29.06.2022, was beyond the 10-year block period prescribed by Sections 153A and 153C. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio.