Loading ITAT cases…
137 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal noted that the second appeal was a duplicate filing. Since the assessee wished to proceed with the original appeal and the Departmental Representative had no objection, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the present appeal.
The Tribunal condoned a 33-day delay in filing appeals, accepting the assessee's reasonable explanation of awaiting rectification. It clarified that, as per CBDT Circular No. 11/2022, "provisional registration" in Form 10AC for existing trusts registered under Section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021 should be treated as full registration. Consequently, the CIT(E)'s order cancelling the registration was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication considering the circular and all submitted documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153C was invalid because the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note lacked a co-relation between the seized material and the specific assessment year in question.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal in a hurried manner, providing only one opportunity of hearing, which did not constitute a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to explain their case. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the matter after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify the assessee's claim of not transacting in the specified shares and whether the conditions for best judgment assessment under Section 144 were met. If the assessee's claim is found correct, the addition will be vacated.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153C was invalid because the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note lacked a co-relation between the seized material and the specific assessment year in question.
The Tribunal held that transactions between intra-group companies in the ordinary course of business cannot be treated as loans or advances for the purpose of section 2(22)(e). The addition made by the AO was arbitrary and illogical.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee for grounds related to unexplained bank credits, cash credits, and advances. The matter concerning these grounds was restored to the AO for verification and readjudication. The ground regarding disallowance of expenses was also remanded to the AO for fresh verification after the assessee provides supporting vouchers.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot introduce new sources of income for enhancement as it goes beyond the scope of assessment by the Assessing Officer. The reliance placed by the CIT(A) on certain Supreme Court judgments for enhancement was found to be misplaced.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 should not lead to denial of FTC, especially when filed before the assessment order. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and High Court rulings on the matter.
The Tribunal condoned a 33-day delay in filing appeals, accepting the assessee's reasonable explanation of awaiting rectification. It clarified that, as per CBDT Circular No. 11/2022, "provisional registration" in Form 10AC for existing trusts registered under Section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021 should be treated as full registration. Consequently, the CIT(E)'s order cancelling the registration was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication considering the circular and all submitted documents.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's action of processing the return and making an adjustment before the expiry of the 30-day response period violated the mandate of Section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of Ground No. 1 due to a Bilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (BAPA). Grounds related to additions made by CPC were set aside to the AO for verification. Interest calculations under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were directed to be recomputed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153C was invalid because the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note lacked a co-relation between the seized material and the specific assessment year in question.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was noted that the application was filed before six months from the expiry of provisional registration. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for reconsideration after providing another opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, a decision upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that payments between group companies in the ordinary course of business are trade advances and do not fall under the definition of deemed dividend in Section 2(22)(e). It further held that Section 2(22)(e) applies only to shareholders with substantial interest in the payer company, a condition not met by the appellant-company in relation to the payer group companies.
The Tribunal held that capital gains are inextricably linked to a valid transfer of a capital asset. Since the original gift deed was cancelled, the capital gains should be assessed in the year the actual transfer effectively took place (AY 2012-13). The assessee is entitled to deductions for indexed cost of acquisition and improvement, and adjustment for taxes already paid.
The Tribunal found that the same issue had already been set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-verification by an earlier Tribunal order. As the original adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was no longer in existence due to that remand, the subsequent addition made by the AO under Section 143(3) could not stand. The matter was therefore again remanded to the Assessing Officer to give effect to the previous directions.
The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-payment of the full appeal fee, the underlying issue of interest calculation under Section 234B required reconsideration. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A), directing them to decide the interest computation after the assessee pays the remaining appeal fee of Rs. 750 within one month, taking into account the tax payment on 01/07/2023.
The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of deduction under Section 80G to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow Foreign Tax Credit as per law. Interest under Sections 234B and 234D was to be re-computed.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal in a hurried manner, providing only one opportunity of hearing, which did not constitute a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to explain their case. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the matter after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153C was invalid because the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note lacked a co-relation between the seized material and the specific assessment year in question.
The Tribunal observed that as per the amended Rule 128(9) of the I.T. Rules, 1962, applicable from AY 2022-23, Form 67 can be filed before the end of the relevant assessment year if the return of income was filed within the Section 139 due date. Since the assessee filed Form 67 on 15/12/2022, which is before 31/03/2023 (end of AY 2022-23), the CIT(A) erred by applying pre-amended rules. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the Foreign Tax Credit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed relief for 1700gms of jewellery based on CBDT Circular No. 1916/1994 and customary practices. However, the remaining 110gms remained unexplained.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act is unsustainable and liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the AO erroneously treated the return of income filed by the assessee on December 11, 2019, in response to the notice under Section 148 dated March 27, 2019, as invalid. Based on this incorrect premise, the AO dispensed with the statutory obligation to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and various High Court judgments, including CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal and ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon, to establish that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) renders the assessment order void, even if the assessee participated in the proceedings. The deeming provisions of Section 292BB of the Act were held to cure only infirmities in the manner of service of notice, not the complete absence of notice. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the other issues raised by the assessee, leaving them open.
The Tribunal condoned the 28-day delay, accepting the assessee's reason of ill-health supported by a medical certificate. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, directing the AO to provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, especially since the original assessment was ex-parte and the assessee claims only agricultural income.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions, a decision upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that payments between group companies in the ordinary course of business are trade advances and do not fall under the definition of deemed dividend in Section 2(22)(e). It further held that Section 2(22)(e) applies only to shareholders with substantial interest in the payer company, a condition not met by the appellant-company in relation to the payer group companies.
The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice, though dated 31/03/2021, was digitally signed and sent on 05/04/2021. Consequently, the amended provisions of Sections 148, 148A, and 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as clarified by the Supreme Court in *Union of India vs. Aashish Agarwal*, were applicable. Since the Assessing Officer failed to follow the prescribed procedure and obtain prior approval from the specified authority under the amended Section 151, the notice was deemed invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the DTVSV Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the settlement under the DTVSV Scheme, 2024 is not finalized for any reason.
The Tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee provided muster rolls with employee signatures, it failed to furnish attendance registers. Considering the difficulty in substantiating daily wage payments with extensive documentation but also the assessee's inability to fully support the expenses, the Tribunal reduced the ad-hoc disallowance from 30% to 10% of the site maintenance expenditure.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred by allowing proportionate TDS credit, as the difference in turnover was fully explained by the sales returns. It held that the CIT(A)'s rejection of the assessee's explanation was based on assumption rather than fact, especially since the assessee had offered the total income for tax. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the full TDS credit of Rs. 1,62,412/- as claimed by the assessee as per Form 26AS.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied solely due to a delay in filing Form 10BB, particularly when the audit report was made available to the Assessing Officer before the assessment order under Section 143(1) was passed. Citing precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption and delete the additions.
The Tribunal condoned the 326-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the genuine reason of email ID change leading to missed communications. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity of hearing, to establish whether advance tax was indeed payable, and to comply with the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, including the option to file an exemption application.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed a cryptic and non-speaking order without properly considering the relevant details and evidences provided by the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the applications for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed a cryptic and non-speaking order without properly considering the relevant details and evidences provided by the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the applications for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in-limine without discussing merits and the assessee claimed improper service of notices. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity of hearing on merits, subject to a nominal cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund or PM Cares Fund.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. It ruled that the assessee is not an 'instrumentality of the State' for immunity under Article 289 of the Constitution, being a distinct legal entity. It also denied exemption under Section 11 due to belated filing of the return of income and Form 10B, as required by Section 12A(1)(ba) read with Section 139(1), and the absence of a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, finding the assessee's explanation plausible and emphasizing a liberal, justice-oriented approach. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal decided both issues in favour of the assessee by remanding them to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. Regarding the first issue concerning the addition of Rs.77,78,368/-, the Tribunal found a factual error by the AO in adopting the turnover figure, leading to incorrect quantification of the difference. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that fixed deposits of Rs.30 lakhs were not reflected in the assessee's balance sheet, and closing balances of ICICI Bank and Andhra Bank, considered for addition, were also not reflected. These discrepancies necessitated reverification from the assessee's books of account. Therefore, the first issue was remanded to the AO for re-adjudication on merits. For the second issue regarding the disallowance of Rs.5,94,202/-, the Tribunal acknowledged that it could not be adjudicated on merits by the AO due to the assessee's non-response. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits and accordingly remanded the second issue to the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide adequate opportunity and the assessee was directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the rejection order was a non-speaking order, lacking reasoning and failing to consider the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the rejection was contradictory to the Section 12A registration already granted to the trust.
The Tribunal held that the medical condition of the Authorized Representative and the pendency of NCLT proceedings constituted sufficient and reasonable explanations for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delays to avoid technicalities defeating substantial justice, especially when the delay is reasonably explained. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the residual delay of 299 days deserved to be condoned, particularly as the assessee had now provided a sufficient cause supported by an affidavit. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the entire delay, including the balance 299 days, and to decide the appeal on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The issue of addition under Section 69A was expressly left undecided as the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction by treating the return filed in response to the Section 148 notice as invalid and failing to issue a notice under Section 143(2). The deeming provisions of Section 292BB do not cure the complete absence of a Section 143(2) notice.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction by treating the return filed in response to the Section 148 notice as invalid and failing to issue a notice under Section 143(2). The deeming provisions of Section 292BB do not cure the complete absence of a Section 143(2) notice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal, finding the reason furnished (ill-health of staff) to be reasonable. Regarding the main issue, the Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause from prosecuting its appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal acknowledged that due to the pendency of NCLT proceedings involving Gayatri Projects Ltd., effective communication of appellate notices was hindered, leading to non-compliance. The Tribunal considered this a circumstance beyond the assessee's control. Despite the revenue's objection that adequate opportunities were provided, the Tribunal decided to take a liberal view based on the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to submit evidence and cooperate in expeditious disposal.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment was invalid due to non-compliance with the approval requirements under Section 151. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the final assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting additional evidence provided by the assessee concerning the source of funds. The matter was restored to the AO for verification and a fresh speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment was invalid due to non-compliance with the approval requirements under Section 151. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the final assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the exchange agreement was a continuation of a prior loan transaction and mortgage, and the mention of cash payment was a typographical error. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment reopening, noting that the assessee had not filed a return of income. However, regarding the addition under Section 69A, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's application to admit additional evidence (confirmation and identity proof of loan creditors) and, with the DR's consent, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of this new evidence and a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed grounds 3 to 5 as not pressed by the assessee. For the remaining grounds, the Tribunal found the AO's estimation of 10% net profit was unsustainable, as it contradicted the 8% proposed in the show-cause notice. Citing a precedent where a 4% profit margin was deemed reasonable for similar businesses, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-estimate the income at a 5% net profit rate.