Loading ITAT cases…
130 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the deposit by showing prior withdrawal of Rs. 84,00,000 from its bank account, which was recorded in its cash book. The Tribunal found that the withdrawal was not disputed and the gap between withdrawal and deposit was not a sole ground for addition.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's application in Form 10AB for regular registration under Section 80G was filed on 20/12/2024, which was beyond the extended due date of 30.06.2024 as per CBDT Circular No. 7/2024. While the delay was procedural, the Tribunal noted that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights, especially for charitable trusts. Although there is no explicit provision in the Act or rules for condoning the delay in filing Form 10AB for Section 80G registration, the assessee was granted liberty to approach the CBDT for condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Following such condonation by the CBDT, the CIT(Exemptions) was directed to consider and dispose of the assessee's application for regular registration under Section 80G on merits, after providing the assessee with due opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 9 crores for alleged on-money payment was not sustainable due to lack of evidence. However, the addition of Rs. 20,85,000 as unexplained cash was upheld.
The tribunal found substance in the assessee's reason for non-participation and set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO. The matter has been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence and substantiate her claims regarding the source of the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without a speaking order and without considering the merits of the grounds of appeal. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the credit period allowed to the Associated Enterprise (AE) should be compared to third-party transactions, not just AE agreements. It also ruled that interest on foreign currency receivables should be computed using LIBOR plus basis points.
On the issue of ROC fee for increased authorized share capital, the Tribunal held that the expenditure is capital in nature. While the assessee argued it was revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) and potentially amortizable under Section 35D, the Tribunal found that the conditions for Section 35D were not met, and the expenditure was related to the expansion of the capital base, thus retaining its character as capital expenditure. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal on this ground. Regarding the Rs. 1,00,00,000/- addition, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The CIT(A) had found that the payments to Shri Suresh Chukkapalli, as reflected in ledger accounts, were for salaries, wages, and labour charges at project sites (Tupakulagudem and Veligonda), constituting legitimate business expenditure. The Tribunal agreed that the AO's addition based on an email was unsustainable given the evidence presented.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging a reasonable cause. It noted that the Telangana High Court had already quashed the notices issued under Section 148A and 148 and all subsequent orders, granting liberty for revival based on the Supreme Court's decision on a pending SLP. Consequently, the Tribunal also quashed the assessment orders passed by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without a speaking order and without considering the merits of the grounds of appeal. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the minor and unintentional 17-day delay, finding it properly explained by the assessee's President's illness. It then remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) did not validly serve the notices to the email address specified by the assessee in Form-35. Consequently, the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable. The matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the 211-day delay, finding it neither deliberate nor intentional, and citing a justice-oriented approach. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the original assessment u/s 143(3) was completed after the AO had examined the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 54F, for which all relevant details were furnished. The reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 was based on the same material already available to the AO during the original assessment proceedings, constituting a 'mere change of opinion'. Citing High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal held that reopening an assessment based on a mere change of opinion, without any fresh tangible material, is not permissible and is bad in law, thus quashing the reassessment order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging a reasonable cause. It noted that the Telangana High Court had already quashed the notices issued under Section 148A and 148 and all subsequent orders, granting liberty for revival based on the Supreme Court's decision on a pending SLP. Consequently, the Tribunal also quashed the assessment orders passed by the AO.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order contained observations incongruous with the assessee's facts and lacked proper appreciation. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after a proper examination of facts and affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without a speaking order and without considering the merits of the grounds of appeal. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the minor delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient and bonafide. It ruled that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals *in limine* without deciding them on merits violated the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that sending notice to an old email ID, rendering it ineffective, did not constitute a proper and meaningful opportunity of hearing as directed by the previous remand order. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was again remanded for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the Assessee to update her email ID in Form-35.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications in a summary manner without proper consideration of the assessee's detailed reply and the nature of its objects, which were undisputed as charitable. It held that merely because activities were at an initial stage and little expenditure incurred, registration could not be denied if the objects were charitable. The matter was remanded for re-consideration after a proper physical hearing.
The Tribunal found that the DRP's rejection of objections on technical grounds without providing an opportunity to rectify the defect violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Final Assessment Order and DRP Directions were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the DRP to allow rectification of defects and decide the objections on merits after a proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to properly verify the source of the cash deposits, despite the assessee providing debtor confirmations and maintaining regular books of account. The AO's addition was based on presumption and conjecture without sufficient inquiry. The Tribunal noted that the debtor details and confirmations were indeed filed and that the AO himself acknowledged receipt of funds from identifiable persons.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adequately considering the assessee's application for condonation of delay and without providing a sufficient opportunity of hearing. The matter is thus restored to the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal and the delay condonation application on merits.
On the issue of ROC fee for increased authorized share capital, the Tribunal held that the expenditure is capital in nature. While the assessee argued it was revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) and potentially amortizable under Section 35D, the Tribunal found that the conditions for Section 35D were not met, and the expenditure was related to the expansion of the capital base, thus retaining its character as capital expenditure. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal on this ground. Regarding the Rs. 1,00,00,000/- addition, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The CIT(A) had found that the payments to Shri Suresh Chukkapalli, as reflected in ledger accounts, were for salaries, wages, and labour charges at project sites (Tupakulagudem and Veligonda), constituting legitimate business expenditure. The Tribunal agreed that the AO's addition based on an email was unsustainable given the evidence presented.
The ITAT held that the Ld. CIT(A) was statutorily obliged under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act to pass a speaking and reasoned order on each ground of appeal, even in an ex parte proceeding. The dismissal for non-prosecution without adjudication of specific grounds was a procedural irregularity. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the WhatsApp message was a budget proposal for a previous financial year and not evidence of actual expenditure for the assessment year in question. The actual expenditure of Rs. 25 lakhs was duly recorded in the books of account and its sources were explained, making the addition unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits. The assessee also did not effectively participate in the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications in a summary manner without proper consideration of the assessee's detailed reply and the nature of its objects, which were undisputed as charitable. It held that merely because activities were at an initial stage and little expenditure incurred, registration could not be denied if the objects were charitable. The matter was remanded for re-consideration after a proper physical hearing.
The ITAT condoned the minor delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient and bonafide. It ruled that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals *in limine* without deciding them on merits violated the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a proper opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT condoned the minor delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be sufficient and bonafide. It ruled that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals *in limine* without deciding them on merits violated the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide proper notice to the assessee for the hearing of the appeal, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal prematurely before the expiry of the deadline given to the assessee for submissions, thus violating natural justice. Furthermore, since the underlying quantum assessment was already set aside by the Tribunal for de novo adjudication, the penalty proceedings were also set aside to the AO to be taken up after the completion of the fresh assessment.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) committed a gross failure by not sending three out of four notices for hearing to the correct email address provided by the assessee in Form-35. This denial of proper opportunity to be heard infringed natural justice. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, directing them to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred by dismissing the appeal based on facts and grounds not related to the assessee, constituting a miscarriage of justice.
On the issue of ROC fee for increased authorized share capital, the Tribunal held that the expenditure is capital in nature. While the assessee argued it was revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) and potentially amortizable under Section 35D, the Tribunal found that the conditions for Section 35D were not met, and the expenditure was related to the expansion of the capital base, thus retaining its character as capital expenditure. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal on this ground. Regarding the Rs. 1,00,00,000/- addition, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The CIT(A) had found that the payments to Shri Suresh Chukkapalli, as reflected in ledger accounts, were for salaries, wages, and labour charges at project sites (Tupakulagudem and Veligonda), constituting legitimate business expenditure. The Tribunal agreed that the AO's addition based on an email was unsustainable given the evidence presented.
On the issue of ROC fee for increased authorized share capital, the Tribunal held that the expenditure is capital in nature. While the assessee argued it was revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) and potentially amortizable under Section 35D, the Tribunal found that the conditions for Section 35D were not met, and the expenditure was related to the expansion of the capital base, thus retaining its character as capital expenditure. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal on this ground. Regarding the Rs. 1,00,00,000/- addition, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The CIT(A) had found that the payments to Shri Suresh Chukkapalli, as reflected in ledger accounts, were for salaries, wages, and labour charges at project sites (Tupakulagudem and Veligonda), constituting legitimate business expenditure. The Tribunal agreed that the AO's addition based on an email was unsustainable given the evidence presented.
The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without examining the issues on merit. It is a well-settled principle that even in cases of assessee's non-appearance, the appellate authority should examine the issues on merit based on available material. The Tribunal noted the assessee's argument that relevant details were submitted with Form No. 35 and reasons for non-appearance were provided. Since the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the issues on merit, contrary to the settled principle of law, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant details. The same reasoning was applied to the appeal for AY 2017-18.
The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous due to the deletion of the addition by the CIT(Appeals). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without considering the merits, which is contrary to established legal principles. The Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the matters for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were defective as the appeal memos remained unsigned and the defects were not cured within the stipulated time. Consequently, the appeals were not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were defective as the appeal memos remained unsigned and the defects were not cured within the stipulated time. Consequently, the appeals were not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were defective as the appeal memos remained unsigned and the defects were not cured within the stipulated time. Consequently, the appeals were not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not reconcile the entries in the seized documents with the income declared in the returns for the HUF and his father's name. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 177 days without considering the 'reasonable and sufficient cause' explained by the assessee, which included her father's hospitalization and death. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not reconcile the entries in the seized documents with the income declared in the returns for the HUF and his father's name. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had merely corrected an inadvertent error in the accumulation of income, not made a fresh claim, and thus the Goetze (India) Ltd. case was not applicable. The Assessing Officer erred in not admitting the corrected calculation.
The Tribunal held that the ad hoc disallowance of 10% of land development expenses was incorrect as the majority of expenses were paid to regulatory authorities and through banking channels, and no specific discrepancies were pointed out in the assessee's books. The Tribunal also considered the commission expenses.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 33 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be genuine and bonafide, and applying a lenient approach as per the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji. On merits, the Tribunal noted that proceedings before the AO were ex-parte. However, before the CIT(A), the assessee had filed a response with relevant details. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering these submissions, relying on judicial pronouncements like Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's submissions, which were filed before the due date. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for reconsideration after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to furnish relevant details when the appeal is posted for hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal by the legal heir was due to the death of the assessee and subsequent family disturbance, constituting sufficient cause. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal condoned the 25-day delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue of disallowance of deduction under Section 80C for LIC premium was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of the additional evidence (LIC receipt) submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the Yedula Irrigation project was also a back-to-back subcontract arrangement, similar to the other irrigation projects undertaken through non-AEs. Therefore, the comparison made by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer was deemed proper and upheld.