Loading ITAT cases…
1,031 orders · Page 16 of 21
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the beneficial tax rate of 10% under the India-Ireland DTAA on interest from income-tax refunds. The issue of TDS credit was restored to the AO for re-examination and allowance.
The Tribunal held that jewellery disclosed under the VDIS scheme, supported by subsequent income tax returns and balance sheets, should not be treated as unexplained. However, the remaining jewellery, not substantiated by evidence beyond marriage photos, was rightly added.
The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148 were based on incorrect facts, specifically referencing AY 2017-18 instead of AY 2020-21. Therefore, these proceedings were liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions that were not part of the original assessment or the High Court's remand directions. The AO's powers on remand are confined to the subject matter of the original writ before the High Court.
The Tribunal restored the first appeal to the PCIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For the second appeal, it reduced the addition on account of cash deposits to Rs. 4 lakhs and directed assessment under normal provisions for Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal restored the first appeal to the lower appellate authority for fresh adjudication. For the second appeal, it reduced the addition on account of cash deposits and directed assessment under normal provisions for Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C to be valid, there must be specific incriminating material found that pertains to the assessment year in question. A general satisfaction note without such specific material vitiates the assessment.
The Tribunal held that since additions were deleted in the hands of the shareholders for the same transactions, the addition in the hands of the assessee also lacked legal basis. Consequently, the assessee's grounds were allowed, and the revenue's grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the condition regarding the quantum of income escaping assessment (Rs. 50 lakhs) was not met for reopening beyond six years under section 153C. Therefore, the notice and subsequent assessment order were rightly annulled.
The Tribunal held that since additions were deleted in the hands of the shareholders for the same transactions, the addition in the hands of the assessee also lacked legal basis. Consequently, the assessee's grounds were allowed, and the revenue's grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since additions were deleted in the hands of the shareholders for the same transactions, the addition in the hands of the assessee also lacked legal basis. Consequently, the assessee's grounds were allowed, and the revenue's grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since additions were deleted in the hands of the shareholders for the same transactions, the addition in the hands of the assessee also lacked legal basis. Consequently, the assessee's grounds were allowed, and the revenue's grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that since additions were deleted in the hands of the shareholders for the same transactions, the addition in the hands of the assessee also lacked legal basis. Consequently, the assessee's grounds were allowed, and the revenue's grounds were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard, considering the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal, considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the principles of natural justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have sought a remand report from the AO before accepting additional evidence. Therefore, the case is remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's reasons. Considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order and the denial of natural justice, the case was remanded back to the AO for a de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal, observing that both the assessment and appellate orders were ex-parte, held that natural justice requires the assessee to be given another opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on July 29, 2022, was time-barred, following the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 on or after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment made based on such notices is void ab initio.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural lapse and not fatal to the exemption claim, especially when the form was obtained before filing the return. Following coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that Section 234E for late filing fee is not applicable for assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. Consequently, the impugned late filing fee was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E of the Act does not cover assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the impugned late filing fee levied by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the late filing fee under Section 234E of the Act does not cover assessment years prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the impugned late filing fee levied by the lower authorities was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was bad in law because the approval for reopening was obtained from an incompetent authority (PCIT instead of PCCIT, as required when more than three years had elapsed). Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not doubt the documentary evidence regarding the purchase and sale of shares. Following a coordinate bench's decision in an identical case, the Tribunal deleted the addition on account of LTCG and the consequential addition on account of commission.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions after considering the evidence and legal propositions, particularly regarding the genuineness of unsecured loans and the absence of rejection of books of account for gross profit estimation.
The Tribunal held that the restriction on Section 87A rebate for special-rate income was introduced prospectively from AY 2026-27. For AY 2025-26, the proviso to Section 87A grants rebate to individuals with total income not exceeding Rs. 7,00,000 under Section 115BAC without excluding income taxable under Section 111A.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal also directed that both parties would be bound by the outcome of the SLP filed by the Revenue against the Ojjus Medicare decision.
On the first issue, the Tribunal held that the assessee's arguments and supporting documents, including its Global Business License, FPI registration, Mauritius Tax Residency Certificate, and Green Bond Scheme, satisfied the "beneficial owner" test under Article 11 of the India-Mauritius DTAA. The Tribunal found no material to suggest the assessee was a mere conduit and concluded that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the assessee's status as the beneficial owner. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's technical objection regarding the applicability of case law from the India-Cyprus DTAA, stating the core issue of "beneficial ownership" is the same. Necessary computation was directed to follow as per law, and the assessee's ground succeeded. On the second issue concerning Section 194LD, the Tribunal, by strictly interpreting the language of the statute, held that "rupee denominated bond" does not include Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs). The Tribunal rejected the assessee's arguments based on definitions in the Companies Act and the PCCIT's instructions, citing the principle of "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" and the lack of statutory force of the PCCIT's letter. The Tribunal distinguished the case law relied upon by the assessee. The Tribunal also clarified that Section 194LD applies to the payer/deductor for TDS, not the deductee claiming assessment at a specific rate. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the alternative argument of assessing interest income as per the relevant Article in the India-Mauritius DTAA afresh. The assessee's second substantive ground was partly accepted for statistical purposes to the limited extent of the AO examining the DTAA aspect.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 153C was void ab initio due to jurisdictional insufficiency. This was because the search was initiated after the cut-off date of April 1, 2021, as per Section 153C(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 153C was void ab initio due to jurisdictional insufficiency. This was because the search was initiated after the cut-off date of April 1, 2021, as per Section 153C(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 153C was void ab initio due to jurisdictional insufficiency. This was because the search was initiated after the cut-off date of April 1, 2021, as per Section 153C(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction, which was routed through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 153C was void ab initio due to jurisdictional insufficiency. This was because the search was initiated after the cut-off date of April 1, 2021, as per Section 153C(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 153C was void ab initio due to jurisdictional insufficiency. This was because the search was initiated after the cut-off date of April 1, 2021, as per Section 153C(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits, finding the assessee's explanation of cash sales unconvincing due to lack of supporting evidence and abnormal sales figures. However, it ruled that Section 115BBE of the Act, with its enhanced tax rate, was not applicable for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The principles of natural justice were not followed as there was no proof of proper service of notices.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2), despite the assessee demonstrating that a return was filed in response to the Section 148 notice, is an invalid order. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. The CIT(Exemption) is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider all evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity of hearing and without following the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT). Since the reopening was beyond three years, the PCCIT was the specified sanctioning authority, making the proceedings vitiated.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation, following Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this notice were quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the issues were factual and required examination of documentary evidence. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity.
The Tribunal held that notices uploaded only on the e-filing portal do not constitute valid service, and principles of natural justice were not adhered to. The appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that trade associations, by their nature, promote public utility. Past registrations and approvals granted to the assessee on similar grounds were considered, and the activities were deemed incidental to the dominant charitable objectives.
The Tribunal held that trade associations, by their nature, promote public utility. Past registrations and approvals granted to the assessee on similar grounds were considered, and the activities were deemed incidental to the dominant charitable objectives.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2), despite the assessee demonstrating that a return was filed in response to the Section 148 notice, is an invalid order. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal allowed the claim for rental payment to the owner and sundry repair charges, along with a portion for caretaker salary. However, other disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were sustained.