Loading ITAT cases…
120 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the new asset was completed after the sale of the old flats, but the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the expenditure incurred after the sale. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the registered Development Agreement cum GPA, coupled with the transfer of possession as per clause 8 of the agreement, signifies the transfer of property in the assessment year 2016-17. An affidavit from the developer stating non-delivery of possession was disregarded as self-serving and subordinate to the registered document.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not discussed or decided the merits of the assessee's appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering all documents and affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind, making the reopening void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on these proceedings was quashed.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim for expenses, relying on ITAT and High Court precedents. The tribunal found the facts similar to cases where expenses incurred for maintaining legal status during asset liquidation were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed verified the capital introduction and that the issue of capital gains was for the partners, not the firm. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has coterminous powers with the Assessing Officer and can refer the matter to the Valuation Officer, even if the assessment proceedings are completed. The difference between the consideration paid and the fair market value determined by the DVO is rightly taxable under Section 56(2)(vii)(ii).
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without a proper hearing. While acknowledging the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in principle but reduced the profit addition to 10% of the bogus purchases, confirming Rs. 82,12,786/- and deleting the rest. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order in principle but reduced the profit addition to 10% of the bogus purchases, confirming Rs. 82,12,786/- and deleting the rest. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances for ESOP/ESPP and hedging loss were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For the Section 80G deduction, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the certificates and allow the deduction if valid, allowing the assessee's appeal on this point. The claim for refund of excess DDT was dismissed, following a Special Bench decision.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) read with Rule 11UA provides the option to the assessee to choose a method of valuation. Once the assessee opts for a method, the AO cannot substitute it with another method. The Tribunal found the assessee's choice of DCF method to be valid.
The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60,00,000/- are not maintainable before the Tribunal. The Revenue should have either not filed or withdrawn the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances for ESOP/ESPP and hedging loss were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For the Section 80G deduction, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the certificates and allow the deduction if valid, allowing the assessee's appeal on this point. The claim for refund of excess DDT was dismissed, following a Special Bench decision.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the property was rightly assessed in the individual capacity of the assessee, as the sale agreement and consideration were received individually. However, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of indexation while computing long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that if an assessee does not have registration under Section 10(23) of the Act, its income should be computed under normal provisions as an Association of Persons (AOP), taxing only the net income after allowing allowable expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the bad debt claim should be allowed after verification by the AO, and litigation expenses incurred to defend against a debarment circular were allowable. The issue of third-party vendor expenses was restored to the AO for further verification, and the disallowance of business development expenses under Section 44C was also restored to the AO for verification of exclusive attribution to the Indian project.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without discussing the merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit documents.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the IT Act by not deciding the appeal on merits. Even in the assessee's absence, the CIT(A) should have considered the case's merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings, which is a mandatory requirement. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses incurred on doctors' meets and services, following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Apex Laboratories Private Limited, which held such expenses as inadmissible business expenditure. However, the issue of interest levy under Section 220(2) was remanded.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. For AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18, which were unabated assessment years, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without seized incriminating materials during the search. The additions were based on information from audit reports and statements of entry operators, but no incriminating material was found in respect of the unsecured loans. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld, following the decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, which were reopened beyond six years but within ten years, the Tribunal found that the AO did not meet the necessary pre-conditions for invoking the 4th proviso to Section 153A. Specifically, there was no incriminating material found during the search, and the condition of escaped income in the form of assets amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more was not satisfied as no such discovery of undisclosed assets was made. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was affirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. For AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18, which were unabated assessment years, the Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without seized incriminating materials during the search. The additions were based on information from audit reports and statements of entry operators, but no incriminating material was found in respect of the unsecured loans. Therefore, the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld, following the decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, which were reopened beyond six years but within ten years, the Tribunal found that the AO did not meet the necessary pre-conditions for invoking the 4th proviso to Section 153A. Specifically, there was no incriminating material found during the search, and the condition of escaped income in the form of assets amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more was not satisfied as no such discovery of undisclosed assets was made. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was affirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to reconsider the issue of capital gains in light of Supreme Court and ITAT decisions concerning annulled property transfers.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors, as all transactions were routed through proper banking channels and supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was erroneous.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to meet the conditions for AY 2023-24, the Revenue should consider the commencement of manufacturing activities prior to 31/03/2024 for subsequent assessment years, as a fresh Form 10ID cannot be filed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get an opportunity to explain the credits in their bank accounts. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh examination and reconsideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss or decide the merits of the appeal, having passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity to present documents and arguments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals). The assessee was directed to pay costs and participate in proceedings to offer proper clarification regarding the deficiency letter.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was restored to the AO for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 10B. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the evidence and submissions.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's explanation but found that the entire amount could not be considered explained. Therefore, a part of the addition was confirmed on an estimation basis.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to present their case. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee might be eligible for exemption under Section 54F, crucial details regarding the nature of the capital asset, fulfillment of conditions, and reinvestment were missing. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal accepted Rs. 9,00,000/- out of the Rs. 12.75 lakhs addition, considering the assessee's explanation of agricultural income and cash kept with parents. The balance Rs. 3,75,000/- was confirmed.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the condonation petition sympathetically and then decide the appeal on merits, providing the assessee with a last opportunity to produce evidence.
The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities did not verify the source of payments and the actual beneficiaries of the sale proceeds. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have referred the determination of the land's value to the Valuation Officer (DVO) as requested by the assessee. The matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for this purpose.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the assessee's case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing and considering the evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee had filed a return of income and explained the source of investment, which should have been considered by the lower authorities before invoking Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided confirmation letters and ID proofs, the Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiries. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that a significant portion of the deposits were made before demonetization and the assessee also declared similar business receipts in subsequent years. Therefore, the deposits could be treated as business receipts, and income should be estimated under Section 44AD.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal due to the incorrect mention of the assessment year. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P in respect of interest income derived from deposits with nationalized banks, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
The Tribunal noted that as per a recent CBDT circular, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 60 lakhs should not be filed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance. Considering the principles of natural justice and the reasonable cause presented, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to consider their contentions after receiving necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the pandemic constituted a sufficient reason for the assessee's non-appearance. The CIT(A) erred by not considering the additional evidence. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.