Loading ITAT cases…
130 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not dealt with all the issues as per the grounds of appeal and had not considered the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT did not examine the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and incorrectly remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the deduction under Section 80-IA is limited to the gross total income.
The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to redo the assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it in accordance with law and rejecting the assessee's grounds.
The Tribunal restored both issues to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. For the cash deposits, the AO needs to verify lease agreements and agricultural income. For the property purchase, the AO needs to examine HUF accounts, loan agreements, and other evidence regarding the source of funds.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision.
The Tribunal held that based on the terms of the JDA, possession was not transferred and no consideration was received by the assessee during the year, thus the essential conditions for transfer under section 2(47)(v) were not satisfied. Consequently, capital gains could not be charged.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without disposing of it on merits, even though the assessee failed to provide necessary documents. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had sufficiently explained the credits, including loans from a director and rental advances. The Tribunal also found no violation of Rule 46A regarding the admission of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.29,80,403/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 is upheld. The seized document, though found from a third party, was a structured record with specific details matching the assessee's name, plot number, size, and some payment particulars in the registered sale deed. The Tribunal distinguished the case from CBI vs. V.C. Shukla, stating this document had corroborative value due to its structured nature and linkage to the sale deed, making the cash entries part of the same transaction. However, the addition of Rs.4,39,000/- claimed as gifts from parents is directed to be deleted. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided an explanation identifying parents with known income sources, and the Revenue did not disprove it with further verification, distinguishing it from Sadiq Sheikh vs. CIT where no explanation was offered. For ITA No.775/Hyd/2025, the issues are identical to ITA No.772/Hyd/2025 regarding additions under Section 69, and the findings are applied mutatis mutandis, upholding the addition.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 29,80,403/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 is sustainable. The seized document, while containing cash entries, also contained specific details like the assessee's name, plot number, size, and matching cheque entries with the sale deed. The Tribunal found this document to be a structured statement with corroborative value, not a random scrap, and distinguished it from the 'dumb document' cited by the assessee in CBI vs. V.C. Shukla. Therefore, the assessee could not selectively deny the cash components. Regarding the addition of Rs. 4,39,000/- claimed as gifts, the Tribunal directed its deletion. While acknowledging that equivalent cash deposits were made in the parents' accounts, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided an explanation identifying parents with known activities, and the Revenue had not disproved it with further verification. The reliance on Sadiq Sheikh vs. CIT was distinguished as the assessee in that case offered no explanation of capacity, unlike here. For ITA No. 775/Hyd/2025, the issues were identical to ITA No. 772/Hyd/2025 regarding the addition based on seized documents, and the Tribunal upheld the addition under Section 69.
The Tribunal held that the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (JDA) permitted the developer entry onto the land solely for construction activities. Crucially, possession for all practical and legal purposes was deemed to be transferred only upon the developer handing over the built-up area to the landowners. The fact that the assessee received no consideration during the assessment year further supported the conclusion that no 'transfer' occurred within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the essential conditions for a transfer were not met, capital gains under Section 45(1) could not be charged for the assessment year 2013-14. The Tribunal also noted that photographs submitted by the assessee indicated the project was still under construction, substantiating that the transaction was not complete. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 1,71,13,333/- made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable and directed to be deleted. Issues regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148 and deduction under Section 54F were kept open as the appeal was allowed on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation or documentary evidence regarding the source of the deposits during the assessment and appellate proceedings. However, considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the matter to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a revised return under Section 139(5) substitutes the original return, and exercising the Section 115BAA option via a revised return within the due date is valid. It was also held that the brought-forward losses were not attributable to specific deductions prohibited by Section 115BAA(2), and thus, their set-off was allowable. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee's books of account are accepted and not rejected, cash sales recorded therein are admitted. Therefore, cash generated from these sales during the demonetisation period constitutes an explained source for the bank deposits, and the addition under Section 69A is not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. While the limitation period for filing the appeal (due by 12.01.2020) did not fall within the specific dates (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) mentioned in the Supreme Court's suo motu order regarding Covid-related extensions, the Tribunal acknowledged the effect of the pandemic during the 642-day delay. By reducing the relief period granted by the Supreme Court, the effective residual delay was approximately 90 days. The Tribunal found that the contemporaneous documents submitted by the assessee, including emails, company letters, an FIR, and a director's resignation letter, prima facie supported the explanation of a prolonged inter-se dispute affecting management functioning. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s characterization of the explanation as an "afterthought" and was satisfied that sufficient cause was shown for the delay. Consequently, the delay was condoned. Furthermore, noting that the case had not been adjudicated on merits and considering the nature of the addition and the admitted non-participation, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to afford the assessee an adequate opportunity, permit the filing of all evidence and explanations regarding the source of cash deposits, and decide the matter afresh by passing a speaking order. The issue of admitting additional evidence was implicitly addressed by remanding the case to the AO for de novo adjudication with permission to file evidence.
The tribunal is hearing an appeal against transfer pricing adjustments made by the TPO and confirmed by the DRP. The assessee disputes various aspects of the transfer pricing analysis, including the selection of comparables, calculation of margins, and treatment of specific transactions like interest on receivables and debentures.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the delay before the Tribunal. It held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. The matter is remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal, following multiple High Court judgments including the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy vs. ITO, held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the introduction of the Faceless Assessment Scheme are invalid and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the notices under Sections 148A(b) and 148, and the resultant reassessment order, were quashed. The Tribunal granted liberty to the parties to seek revival of the appeal if the Supreme Court's decision on similar pending SLPs necessitates a modification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be genuine. The Tribunal, referring to its own prior decision, held that since the Firm was not in existence during the assessment year, the additions made and penalties levied were null and void.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was invalid. Furthermore, since no additions were made on the primary issue for reopening, the reassessment order was not valid.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of furnishing the audit report is procedural and that the deduction under Section 80-IA cannot be denied on this technical ground if the audit report is filed before the completion of assessment. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.
The Tribunal agreed with the PCIT that the AO's order was erroneous for not properly examining the cash deposits and arbitrarily estimating income. However, the Tribunal modified the PCIT's direction to treat the entire deposits as unexplained, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT should have adjudicated the issues on merits instead of remanding them to the AO. It found that the claims for depreciation and section 80IA deduction were legally allowable on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and the interest of justice, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000/-. The appeal was set-aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining additional evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the dispute involved in the assessee's appeal had been resolved under the MAP proceedings. This resolution was communicated by the CBDT vide letter dated 11.09.2025, which indicated an agreement between the Indian and US Competent Authorities to resolve the MAP for AY 2020-21 concerning adjustments related to Software Development Services and Employee Stock Award. The communication detailed the proposed adjustment, amount relieved, and amount sustained for the relevant transactions. Considering the submissions of both parties and the fact that the dispute was resolved through MAP, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal without adjudicating its merits, particularly when an adjournment request was made but unaddressed, constitutes a denial of natural justice. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, while directing the assessee to fully cooperate and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The tribunal condoned the 433-day delay, finding the assessee's explanation (residing outside India and only becoming aware of the assessment after his wife returned to India and found the bank account attached) bona fide. Following Supreme Court guidance, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
Acknowledging the assessee's belated payment of the initial cost, the Tribunal emphasized that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, conditional on the assessee paying an additional cost of Rs.20,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within one month to balance equities and discourage further lapses.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely based on seized material found from a third party without any corroborative evidence from the AO or providing the assessee with an opportunity for cross-examination. Citing principles of natural justice and a similar precedent, the Tribunal deleted the addition.
The tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 37(1) was a double disallowance as the assessee had already added it back in the return. It further held that the disallowance under Section 43B was unsustainable as the provision was inherited from a demerged company from earlier years and not created in the current year. Therefore, both additions were deleted.